flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: CreateJS Externs (was: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 Released)
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:09:12 GMT
I don't have an answer to your question. However, considering that there is
disagreement on who should have copyright, and the original license is one
that we can use, I don't see a risk in keeping their header. We can use the
code either way.

- Josh

On Sep 15, 2016 4:40 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 9/15/16, 4:17 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynjala@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Wouldn't it be easier to leave the originally license header intact, even
> >if it may not necessarily be required, than to try to convince another
> >community to take ownership of the code?
> Not sure.  If we give them copyright and we shouldn't have, can we take it
> back?
> In the long term, I think if it isn't too hard to get the CreateJS
> community to take over the externs, then we don't have to deal with
> maintaining the patch files that generate the externs.  It is pretty
> fragile stuff.  If CreateJS adds new APIs to both their library and the
> externs at the same time, we won't have to deal with the patch process not
> working.  Same is true for any other third-party library.  If FlexJS is
> successful, every third-party JS framework will want to have externs for
> FlexJS and it will be more efficient for both communities of the
> third-party community controls their externs.  That we we aren't bothered
> with handling patches from them, etc.
> -Alex

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message