flex-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Mclean (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (FLEX-35255) Discrepancy between FAQ and license terms
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2017 02:36:42 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15857260#comment-15857260
] 

Justin Mclean commented on FLEX-35255:
--------------------------------------

INAL but AFACS there no restrictions added by point 4 of the license other than including
the Apache license and notice file which is hardly onerous. You can license your code however
you want and the output of code produced by the SDK can be also licensed however you want.

Adobe signed the RSL cached by the Flash Player for version of Flex up to 4.6, they don't
for any version of ApacheFlex, you can still make RSLs but need to rely on browser caching
rather than FP caching.

> Discrepancy between FAQ and license terms
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLEX-35255
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35255
>             Project: Apache Flex
>          Issue Type: Documentation
>    Affects Versions: Apache Flex 4.15.0
>            Reporter: Sword Dragon
>
> At http://flex.apache.org/dev-faq.html at the entry "Does Apache Flex cost money?" stands
the sentence "This allows you to use the SDK and any outputs of the SDK for personal and commercial
use with virtually no restrictions.". On evaluating this I believe this allows me to compile
SWF's with static linking against components of the SDK (like the RSL's) without restrictions.
But on making a look at the actual license I believe the above case would create a derivative
work and the restrictions of point 4 of the Apache license version 2.0 would apply.
> Am I eventually missing/overlooking something? What is the actual intention in case of
licensing terms for these statically integrated parts of the SWF? Is eventually a linking
exception needed?
> Also I'm wondering if -static-link-runtime-shared-libraries=false would be enough to
solve a potential license issue or if there are still other components that would still be
statically integrated into the SWF that may cause potential license issues. Also on dynamic
linking with Apache Flex 4.15.0 the produced SWF seems to not work anymore. I'm not sure why,
maybe the RSL's are just not available online for this version and I should just create another
ticket for it (eventually I have just to downgrade to Adobe Flex 4.6 and compile dynamically
to gain more safety?).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Mime
View raw message