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, 03 Jan 2015 21:59:19 GMT
On 1/3/15, 11:03 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>>>> IMO, it would be better if I keep making changes and Justin does the
>>>> review.  He’s a much better reviewer and the results will have one
>>>> authoring style.
>>>Your viewpoints are different enough that discussing this until you've
>>>reached agreement - which is basically what one person editing and one
>>>reviewing would be - would take ages, if it happened at all.
>> AIUI, the only missing required pieces are the W3C and xml-api*.jar
>> notices.
>So, no worries then, Justin seems to have a clear understanding of how
>these should be handled, and he plans to tackle some other stuff (low
>hanging fruit, IIUC) at the same time. Win-win?

OK, I guessed wrong that you’d want the minimum set of changes.  If you’re
willing to take on more and Justin has the time, I’ll go back to other
things and wait for his version.

>>>I think this exercise in legal wrangling has gone on long enough. This
>>>stuff has been unchanged for 7 releases without the world coming to an
>>>end and to be honest my patience is running thin.
>> Yes, well, we could have just unbundled these jars and been done a long
>> time ago, but we are going through all of this because we’re afraid of
>> potential download failures.
>From the little I understand of this whole thread, that would've meant
>adding another user nag message, which I don't think is trivial.

No, that’s not true, especially if we’re not going to nag on OSMF and
SWFObject anymore.


View raw message