flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>
Subject Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs
Date Fri, 02 Jan 2015 11:44:52 GMT
>> 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.

So, if I understand correctly, the current 'consensus' is that there
need to be fixes to LICENSE and NOTICE. Alex has these all but done.
Then there is the issue about the various installer prompts: we either
include a Saxon prompt, or we decide not to and to be consistent we
remove the OSMF prompt. My vote would be for option 2: less prompts
improves user experience. And if we're removing prompt anyway, then
the one for SWFObject seems to be an easy target, since that seems to
be unneeded anyway.

As RM, I choose to interpret the lack of response from both
"general@incubator.apache.org" and "LEGAL-on-JIRA" as these issues
being very much edge cases, and the Board won't disband the current
PMC for publishing a release with the above best efforts.

So: Alex, if you can please commit your suggested changes to LICENSE
and NOTICE so Justin can review? And what would it take to remove the
prompts for OSMF and SWFObject from the install scripts?



Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message