flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:44:19 GMT

>  Are you proposing to get the OpenFL community to accept headers on their source
> files by submitting a pull request on their repos and then replicating
> that header under the ASF header in Matrix.as?

No I was going to add a header to make it clear that the code wasn’t originally Apache licensed
and originally come from somewhere else.

> And are you going to have the build download their LICENSE.md file from their
> repo and adjust our LICENSE to point to it?

Yes but only downloading it once and adding a file to our repo. It can be found here. [1]
I'd only use the MIT bits as the other bits don’t apply to what we used.

> Again, we are not consuming an entire artifact or file.

The original code is copyright other people and under a different license, as per policy [2]
changes to a differently licensed file keeps the original license. Even if it was extensively
modified (and the bar is generally very high for that) it would still be useful to note that
it was originally owned by someone else and under a different license. The guiding principle
also applies here, if it bundled and permissive then it needs to be mentioned in license.
And it’s also important that we should abide by the terms of the MIT license and have the
copyright owner and full text somewhere.

>  Are you proposing to submit a pull request to the Flat UI folks to have them put a correct
> MIT license in their repo or README.md?

No. They do however link to MIT [3] on their page so it clear what their intent is and what
the license text would be.

>  And then adjust our build to download that and point to it from our LICENSE? 

Yes as above.

> I've been unable to find a volunteer to donate the end result to CreateJS,
> but I still think that's the best course of action.

By donating the files I assume you mean they will no longer be bundled in a release?  If so
then there needs to be nothing about them in our license file, but if they are still bundled
they would need to be mentioned.

> when my manager returns in about 3 weeks I will seek permission to make the donation
so we can avoid
> debating this issue and maybe get some positive attention from the CreateJS community.

Adding the header is simple and covers us until that has been sorted out. "Worse case" I’ll
be happy to remove the header if required at a later date. IMO It’s better to have a possible
documentation issue than a possible licensing error.

> If we do the steps above, what else will need a pointer?  And, if you have
> time, what policy document requires pointers?

It’s only in the how to (that I’m aware of), but Ross (+ others) has said to use the short
form many times. It makes the license smaller and easier to understand for anyone looking
at. Oddly I can’t find legal policy that says the full text must be copied into LICENSE
either, can you provide a link to that please?

>  AIUI, the how-to is only a how-to and not a policy document and certainly allows copied
of licenses.

My (+others) understanding is both are allowed but the short form is preferred.

So am I good to make all of the above changes?


1. https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/LICENSE.md
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party (see points 3 + 4)
3. https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

View raw message