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 Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:32:18 GMT
From [1], I would interpret the following:

For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which
licenses are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License
2.0?Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache

* Apache License 2.0 <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>
<many licenses skipped>
* License for CERN packages in COLT
<http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/license.html> but note that this applies
only to CERN packages in COLT and not others

to mean that we need approval to use the CERN sort algorithm bundled in
Saxon.  I agree with Justin that Legal really should approve, but
technically they haven’t.  But if approved, then yes, we need to change
NOTICE as Justin said.  There is a complex set of NOTICES that come with
Saxon.  I think Justin and I agree that some don’t need to be in our

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

On 1/4/15, 5:54 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>That is awesome!
>So, just change NOTICE and we're done with this?
>On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
>> Hi,
>>> If you and Alex keep on disagreeing
>> I actually don't think there's any disagreement here.
>> Justin
>Ix Multimedia Software
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message