Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Installer] legal review
From: Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1002AEF.25C2D%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:42:39 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F090AA37-9AB8-42F3-85C2-EA5650912263@classsoftware.com>
References: 
 <CAJs+wW0=-hvg61pd9=fU+hQ_mkuZUyARS3OrXCLoxBoP=wczFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9F600925-9037-4B21-A644-59D0D81B436B@classsoftware.com>
 <D1002AEF.25C2D%aharui@adobe.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org

Hi,

> In this particular case, I, as an Adobe employee, re-licensed the code =
and
> donated it to Apache.

With the permission / blessing of Adobe legal department? Again I don't =
think there is an issue here, but just asking.

> We only download the binary SWC from as3 commons zip and don=92t =
bundle the
> full SWC.

The LICENSE/NOTICE must reflect what is bundled but again in this case =
it's not a major issue.

As I stated I don't think what we currently have is 100% correct, but =
it's probably good enough and given the licenses incolved there's little =
or no legal risk involved to the project so there's no issue in making a =
release with the current LICENSE/NOTICE. Unless anyone thinks otherwise?

Thanks,
Justin