flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Date Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:56:38 GMT
Please ... what is the problem here? I really don't get it.

Justin found stuff that we could live with and have a slight risk or we change things and
don't have that slight risk. Now you might think that it's not worth fixing ... fine. But
as far as I understood it Justing is willing to do everything needed to resolve this issue.

I couldn't get from your emails that you think it's wrong, you just think it's not worth it
or not our responsibility. So let Justin do these changes and get on with it. Right now it
doesn't feel as if he's bugging the project, but it's your resistance to let him change the
things that result in this topic popping up again and again and I would be happy to finally
settle this.

Do we have to put up a vote?


Von: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Oktober 2016 18:42:18
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third
>> party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think
>> you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the ASF or
>> the Apache Flex PMC.
>Fix header means correct the issue with the header and notify upstream. I
>mentioned both in my email.

Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the
OpenFL community?

>I would be representing the Flex project with my Flex PMC hat on. Why
>would there an issue with that? There’s consensus on what action is
>required on legal discuss, or do you disagree with that? I think it would
>encourage them to make the changes if I explain where and how their code
>is being used.

IMO, there is different value for different things.  Whether there is a
header in the OpenFL Matrix.hx file does not, AIUI, affect our ability to
ship Apache Flex releases.  A senior Apache member said we can use "trust"
and "intent".  I personally wish to do so here.  Roy said that there is no

I appreciate it when you find the big ticket items in our releases such as
a Category X or B dependency, and you are probably be best at finding
stuff like that, but once we are in the details of permissive licensing, I
would prefer that Apache Flex not build a reputation as a stickler.  I
think we spend way too much time on the details within our community and
do not wish to make other communities spend more time than the value it
might return.  Also, you will be the person agreeing to any CLA with the
upstreams.  The PMC and the ASF is cannot sign a CLA.

If you want to say "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing
ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of
licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of
our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache
projects and here's a patch that does that" I think that would be even
more encouragement than just saying our one project wants them to change
something, but still you are representing yourself and how important you
think it is.

BTW, I don't recall that there was any upstream header fixes needed for
CreateJS.  I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get
permission to donate the externs files to them.

>> Add header to where?
>Any source files that originally came from them that has a missing header.

AIUI, that is only their css/less files, and again, we did not start by
copying their files.

>>  I assume you are planning to contact design modo as well?
>Yes as I stated in my email. see a few lines below which you also
>included in your reply.
>>> I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for
>>> and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.

Feel free to contact them as an individual.  I personally do not support
your questioning of their ability to license their code as MIT.  You
could, in theory, write such a letter to providers of any code base
imported by Apache.  The set of CLAs from third-parties for patches
accepted by Adobe before the donation to Apache is not public and making
Adobe rummage through that and defend itself would not put the ASF or
Apache Flex in good standing with Adobe, so I am personally uncomfortable
with having myself associated with any challenge to DesignModo or any
third-parties.  Now if you want to contact them and say the exact same
thing I suggest you say to OpenFL and your patch uses a DesignModo
copyright therefore trusting that they have correctly handled ownership,
again, because Apache Flex is not obligated to do that, I still don't want
to be represented in this communication, but at least having them accept a
DesignModo-copyrighted MIT header would be a relatively quick improvement
to the ecosystem.

If other PMC members do want to have the PMC back Justin's communication
with the third-parties, please speak up.  I'm only one person with one


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