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 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:42:25 GMT


On 12/28/14, 12:29 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>>  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:"
>
>and
>
>"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 release.

[1] is about, as I said, that LICENSE and NOTICE must match the contents
of the binary package.

The questions I am trying to get answers to are:

-Can a binary package bundle a binary without its source?
-Was there any past discussion that caused the Installer to ask about
accepting SWFObject’s MIT License?

The answers may affect what goes in the binary package and thus what goes
in the LICENSE and NOTICE for the binary package.

Meanwhile, I’m still puzzling over which Saxon NOTICES apply.

-Alex

>
>1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary

Mime
View raw message