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 Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:09:29 GMT

On 1/2/15, 11:30 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>> We cannot bundle Saxon in the binary package because there are classes
>> the Saxon jar that haven’t been approved as Apache-compatible.  While
>> other Apache projects “use” Saxon, the first four I looked at don’t
>> to bundle it in their binary packages.  At least, I don’t see saxon*.jar
>> in the binary packages or mention of Saxon in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>> of those packages.
>So, the others get to use Saxon without any mention of it in their
>legal docs, and we have to remove it or at least bother the user about
>downloading it?

By removing Saxon from our binary package, we’d be able to remove mention
of it from our legal docs as well.

I am not familiar with details of the projects I looked at, but it appears
that for some and maybe all, Saxon is just a choice of XSLT processor.
Users of those projects might have to manually download Saxon and modify
configuration file.  We probably don’t want to make our users manually
download Saxon, so offering to download it during the build and/or install
seems better.


View raw message