flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:11:01 GMT

On 4/25/17, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it
>Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be
>relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under.

Again, you assuming this is a derivative work.  Let's suppose that Google
redefined the externs format to look like this:

#List of Symbols That shouldn't be renamed

And I committed this file to our repo.  Would you still insist that it is
a derivative work?  Adobe Legal says it is a new work, and thus it can be
separately licensed.

>INAL and Adobe may own the copyright on the patch, but if it's considered
>just a list as you say then they probably don’t (non creative items like
>lists can’t be copyrighted is my understanding) so I’m not sure how you
>can have it both ways. Could you explain? Either way they certailly don’t
>own the copyright of the original code.

If I write a book about CreateJS and list some of the APIs of CreateJS,
the pages I wrote do not need the CreateJS license and I could license it
how I want to.  It would be different if I copied their actual
implementation or modifications of their implementation.

>Again INAL but I think you may be missing Ray's point that the contents
>of the file (including the comments retained by the patch) would still be
>under MIT license. That irrespective of it it’s treated as code or not.
>Anyway let see what Roy replies with and go with that.

Roy and everyone else were not informed that Adobe Legal determined that
the file is a new work and not a derivative work because it is a list, so
of course the came to the right conclusion for a derivative work.

Fundamentally, I took the time to get a real legal opinion.


View raw message