flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs
Date Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:29:20 GMT

>  Since binary packages are not an act of the foundation, other than the explicit
> statement that LICENSE and NOTICE must match the contents of the binary
> package, I can’t imagine that it puts the foundation at risk if we guess
> wrong about packaging external jars that are otherwise open source or if
> we ask too many or too few questions during the install about the open
> source licenses for those jars.

I'm really not sure that is correct, from [1]:

"What applies to canonical source distributions also applies to all redistributions, including
binary redistributions:"


"Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents."

We can't ignore the licensing requirements of bundled jar just because it's a binary release.
Asking too many questions is not a major issue as the minimal licensing requirements have
been met, but asking too few is a licensing error and needs to be corrected before we can


1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
View raw message