flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs
Date Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:29:40 GMT
This is a great find.  I only found Saxon to not have Category A license.
Did you find the others?

It looks like we have not handled Saxon correctly since forever.  The
install scripts need to prompt for it.  Any volunteers to make the changes
or should I do it?

The LICENSE.bin is definitely out of date.


On 12/20/14, 12:44 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>Hi, just continuing this discussion here... This is the state we left
>it in the other thread:
>>> Maybe because there is no difference in the LICENSE for source and
>>>binary packages?
>>The binary package bundles extra 3rd party jars such as Saxon which is
>>MPL licensed [1],
>>that requires  change to LICENSE right? The MPL was removed from LICENSE
>>in this
>>release. Also both Xerces and Xalan jars are bundled and content in
>>their NOTICE files
>>that looks like they need to be in our binary NOTICE file. See the
>>content in LICENSE.bin
>>which looks like a good attempt to take into account of this but may not
>>be 100% correct.
>Ix Multimedia Software
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message