flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2016 18:09:51 GMT

On 9/6/16, 7:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>-1 (binding). The LICENSE file mentions 2 MIT licensed pieces of software
>but we are not including the copyright or text of the respective MIT
>license as required by terms of the MIT license. [1] Normally in a source
>release you would add a local file pointer to the full text in LICENSE
>[2]. I would vote +1 on another RC if there pointer to the full MIT
>license text added.
>For info on ASF policy and why I voted -1 see [3] ("meet all requirements
>of ASF policy”) [4] (“Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing
>policy") and [5] ("The component license itself MUST either be appended
>or else stored elsewhere in the package”).

While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC.  I'd rather get
the bits on the mirrors for Chris's talk.  The providers of the MIT
software have been mentioned in LICENSE, so they have been given
attribution, just not as perfectly as one might like.

For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo.  It
doesn't really make sense to me to just place a copy of the vanilla MIT
license to satisfy this technicality.

For the OpenFL source derivation, the file we borrowed snippets from does
not have a header, and since we didn't copy all of their code, we don't
want to copy their LICENSE verbatim as it mentions things that we didn't

We could cut another RC with the part of the OpenFL license that applies
copied into our LICENSE and have a short vote on it.  I've pushed that
change in case we want to go that way (and added a blurb into Matrix.as
since there is no header to copy), but, I'm fine with going with RC1 since
we know that we'll pick up this change in the next release.  What do
others want to do?


View raw message