flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [SDK] missing license headers in license file?
Date Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:10:56 GMT
Sorry, I agree it is very confusing.  IMO, there are two choices based on
the repo before you made changes:

1) just add the two OFL.txt files to the RAT excludes.
2) copy the entirety of the two OFL.txt files including the copyrights
into LICENSE and don’t touch NOTICE.

My understanding is that we’re not supposed to edit a third-party license,
which is effectively what you did by splitting the OFL.txt file into two
pieces.  NOTICE doesn’t have to contain the copyright for every
third-party copyright, only when the third-party license itself requires
attribution but doesn’t have a place for that attribution in the template
for the third-party license.  There is no one rule for every third-party

I would prefer #1 because having two copies of OFL.txt with different
copyrights at the top makes LICENSE look like it has duplication and the
how-to recommends pointers.  And yes, I will make the changes if you want
me to.

Sorry and thanks,

On 11/19/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>And: why does this have to be so difficult? Between the NOTICE and the
>LICENSE it is very clear who own the copyright to - and which license
>applies to - the fonts. What more can one want, or why would you do less,
>given that the fonts are open source?
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> Nope. You lost me completely. Shall I revert and leave it to the
>> Or can you tell me what to change, without explaining why, please?
>> EdB
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/19/14, 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>> >I followed some of the other 'external' licenses, which have a copy of
>>> the
>>> >license in LICENSE (with a sentence explaining to what it applies) and
>>> the
>>> >original copy right claims of the authors in NOTICE (with a mention of
>>> the
>>> >applicable license). I have just committed my changes, feel free to
>>> review
>>> >those.
>>> I did look.  My understanding of the rules is that some licenses tell
>>> author to add their copyright to the license text, and in those cases,
>>> think we’re not supposed to modify the license text to separate out the
>>> copyrights into the NOTICE file.  Instead, just use a pointer in
>>> (i.e., tell folks where to find the third-party license file) which is
>>> I’d told the FlatSpark folks to do it, or copy the whole third-party
>>> license with the copyrights into LICENSE which is sort of what
>>>happened in
>>> Squiggly.
>>> It is the Apache policy that has us move copyrights for donated code to
>>> And in the case where the license requires attribution but no
>>> is in the LICENSE like the CameronMusic sound, we mentioned the
>>>creator in
>>> the NOTICE.
>>> -Alex
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>Ix Multimedia Software
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message