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 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 05:49:26 GMT
OK, I went through the changes.  I didn’t see anything that looked wrong.

A question or two for this:
+This produce bundles SAX2 available under a Public Domain license.
+For more details see lib/external/LICENSE.sax.txt

Why did you decide to call it SAX2 and not just SAX or SAX 2.0?  And
should we also be putting version numbers on all of the other dependencies?
Also, I fixed “produce” and one other typo so pull before you make any
further changes.

And regarding Saxon:  I think it is the same sort code from COLT so we
should proceed as if Saxon is ok to use under Category B.  Of all the
legal notices that come with Saxon, I’m pretty sure Ant is not included in
the jar we are using but Resolver and Xerces are, but you can double check
that if you want.  I didn’t check the others.

Thanks for cranking through all of this.

On 1/4/15, 11:53 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>>  I think some changes need to be made to the build script to pull out
>>the W3C licenses to where they are supposed to be.
>That's correct - I've not done that yet.

View raw message