flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com>
Subject Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs
Date Sat, 03 Jan 2015 00:16:27 GMT
Hi,

> I don’t have time to reply to all of these points right now but I will later.

Once you do I'll make the changes.

> I’m not clear most of your suggestions are required.'

Correct not everything there is a licensing error but there several that would be IMO release
blockers. But as we're changing it we might as well try and get it right.

> In the meantime, can you explain what is a “short form of BSD”.

License pointers are preferred to full licenses in the LICENSE file. eg BSD license in [1]
Not a blocker but very easy to fix, assuming you agree to the change.

>  Also, I think I’ve seen other projects “assemble” LICENSE and NOTICE. 

They do but as per [2][3] you don't copy the full contents of the Apache 3rd party NOTICE
file into our NOTICE file. You only need the parts you're required to copy. IMO it's also
easier to have the full licence and notice in version control so you can see the license without
have to build the software. (30 minutes or so in the case of the binary).

Thanks,
Justin

1 http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2 http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product
3.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice


Mime
View raw message