incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Сергей aSt Егоров <bsid...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MENTORS] Handling Adobe Binaries
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:54:35 GMT
BTW, playerglobal.swc is aviable here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/downloads.html

We can just note user that he needs to manually download this binary.

How about that?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> ....We discovered yesterday that playerglobal.swc is not under MPL and is still under
Adobe license.  Same for the AIR SDK....
>
> What's that Adobe license exactly? URL?
>
>> ...I want to check my understanding of how to handle these binaries....
>
> I'll try that assuming that Adobe license does not allow us to
> redistribute those files.
>
>>
>>  1.  We still cannot check these into Apache Flex SVN because we don't have permission
from Adobe to do so.
>>  2.  We cannot put them in either a source or binary distribution because we don't
have permission from Adobe to do so.
>
> Both correct IMO.
>
>>  3.  Since these are required files, we cannot download them as part of the build
script.
>
> Not automatically, but if the user needs to take active action to
> confirm that they accept using those files, and us encouraging them to
> do so is not illegal, the build could download them.
>
> However, if Flex cannot work without them we have a problem - required
> dependencies of an Apache product must have compatible licenses.
>
> If you can document (in JIRA I'd say) what makes you consider those
> files as build tools, that relaxes some of the licensing requirements
> as described at http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
>
>>  4.  FlashBuilder currently expects an SDK to be a folder tree contain a set of SWCs
some of which are a result of
>> compiling the Apache Flex code, but one is, for example, playerglobal.swc.  Can we
tell folks to take the source
>> distribution and unzip it into the same folder tree as playerglobal.swc?  Or does
that go into dangerous territory
>> where it would be confusing to someone as to what the license is for various files
after the source distribution
> + is unzipped?...
>
> I'll try to rephrase to make sure I understand - IIUC someone needs to
> tell people to unpack the Apache Flex source distribution and mix that
> with other files which do not come from Apache, in order to use
> FlashBuilder which is an external tool that does not belong to us.
>
> I don't see a problem, we are just providing instructions about how
> people can make use of Apache Flex in the FlashBuilder context, as a
> convenience to them.
>
>>  5.  Are the rules for a convenience binary distribution different?  Could we instruct
folks to unzip the binary into
>> the same folder tree as playerglobal.swc?
>
> We can IMO, in the same way.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -Bertrand



-- 
С уважением, Сергей Егоров

Mime
View raw message