flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC1
Date Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:58:22 GMT

> And from [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally
> required."

That correct but attribution IS legally required. Any license that requires attribution needs
to be added to NOTICE. I checked with a member here at ApacheCon and they confirmed that is
the case.

> I wish I’d seen this sooner.  Or did you already ask?

I did point it out ages ago and asked if anyone had any objections - there were none. This
content was actually in the previous release so it's not new and it has already been voted
on and released. Most of the content on wikipedia was actually written by me (but not that
that probably matters).

> Or how about this alternative?  Since you aren’t linking to text from
> wikipedia and instead are copying text from wikipedia, how about we copy
> text from blogs.apache.org/flex?  Then we can avoid this whole
> LICENSE/NOTICE issue completely.

I probably won't have time to do that until after ApacheCon and I'm back in Australia. I'd
suggest we release what we have now. As it already has been released so if it is in error
we've already done that. Lets fix and rerelease if and when we have a clearer understanding
on what should be done.

As I said worse case is we have something extra in NOTICE and that is not a licensing error.
There are many Apache project that has too much in NOTICE (ie MIT and BSD). Having something
missing from NOTICE however is a licensing error. Also there are zero projects that depend
on Tour De Flex having the extra content in NOTICE has zero effect even if it is not required.

View raw message