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 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:48:27 GMT
Hi,

> Then we need to decide whether we want the install scripts to prompt folks
> to accept Saxon or not, and whether we should continue to have folks
> approve OSMF and SWFObject like we currently do.  

We should probably be consistent. If we ask for OSMF we should for Saxon. It seems clear to
me that theirs no need to ask if we only include the jar, as the source code isn't included,
it can't be modified, and so the week copy left provisions of MPL don't apply. But either
way (if we ask or not) it's not a blocker as the license requirements have been met. (Assuming
it's added to LICENSE.)

Re SWFObject (MIT licensed) there no need to ask but again it's not a blocker if we do, just
unnecessary. 

I've pointed this out before but seems like a good time to mention it again Firefox had a
big issue with this [1][2][3]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/eula/
2. http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/
3. http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/16/
Mime
View raw message