flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:18:25 GMT

It has been my understanding that any existing code base that gets stored
in an Apache Flex repo must be "donated" via the Apache Software Grant
process, which essentially requires that the author of every line of code
in the code base needs to sign a legally-binding document.

I just found out that, while that is still the preferred method, if a code
base is already under the Apache License, it can also be "adopted" with
much less hassle.

Christophe Herreman, who also happens to be on our PMC, and one of the
major contributors to AS3Commons, is interested in having Apache Flex
adopt the AS3Commons code.  I think this would be a good move for Apache
Flex because we use some of AS3Commons in the Installer already so it
would be good to have this code in a place we can control, especially if
we want to see how much of it will work in FlexJS.

So, first we should discuss whether we want to adopt AS3Commons and
actually vote on it, then we will try to contact by email every past
contributor to AS3Commons to see if they have any objections to having the
code base adopted by Apache Flex.  The wording of the email is still being
finalized on the Apache legal-discuss mailing list, but basically, instead
of having to track down every past contributor and get their signature on
a Software Grant, we can now just gather email responses from as many of
those past contributors as we can.

After the email goes out, we'll wait 30 days or so for responses.  If we
get an objection from a past contributor, then we'll look to see what
lines of code they contributed and determine what the impact would be of
not having those lines of code in our code base.  It might be easily
replaceable.  If we don't hear from a past contributor we will look at the
risk of what might happen if they do respond later with an objection.

So, we don't have to actually hear from every past contributor in order to
proceed with the adoption, but we might decide not to complete the
adoption if we get objections from or don't get a response from a major

Technically and legally, we could "fork" this code without permission from
anybody since the code is under the Apache License, but socially, Apache
wants all code to come in voluntarily, which is why we want to make sure
there are no objections from past contributors as well as anyone on this
mailing list.


View raw message