incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "" <>
Subject AW: AW: AW: Flex Maven FDK Generator RC1
Date Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:27:33 GMT
99% of my companies Maven repo is filled with stuff containing several licenses, but these
are all some sort of open-source licenses and there is no manual effort needed to have Nexus/Artifactory
automatically import them from other repos. For those 1% of the commercial libs, I usually
only have to deploy them manually. Fortunately they are usually only one or two jars or swcs/swfs
so this isn't a big issue. Having to deploy all of the artifacts of Flex however would take
me a full week of manual uploading of artifacts. This is the main Issue with deploying the
Flex SDKs ... the number of artifacts.

Regarding your legal questions about being allowed to upload commercial libs to a companies
repo. I guess this is a gray zone. Usually the licenses allow you to use a lib but don't tell
you how you are allowed to save it. Certainly it would be allowed to store the zip with my
libs on a remote file-share ... I think of maven being exactly the same. Most licenses are
bound to the number of developers using it and this is something I have to handle inside my
company. No matter if I distribute the files using Maven or by copying the content of a zip
from one share to another.


[ C h r i s t o f e r  D u t z ]

C-Ware IT-Service
Dipl. Inf. Christofer Dutz
Karlstraße. 104, 64285 Darmstadt

   IT- und Systemhäuser

fon:  0 61 51 / 27315 - 61
fax:  0 61 51 / 27315 - 64
mobil:  0171 / 7 444 2 33

UStId-Nr. DE195700962

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Alex Harui [] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012 18:18
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Flex Maven FDK Generator RC1

On 10/15/12 11:57 PM, ""
<> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> But I think adding not adding potentially very usefull information, 
> just because noone uses it will certainly not help the tag being used 
> some day ;-) .. I know that Artifactory Pro for example allows to 
> filter artifacs based on this information. So I think adding these 
> tags to the pom will not do any harm, but provide some information that could be valuable
in the future.
I don't have any problem with filling out the license tags, but I'm not sure that will be
sufficient for Adobe.
> What groupId are you talking about? The general gid I was using 
> "com.adobe.flex", "com.adobe.flash" and "com.adobe.air"? If Adobe 
> would like to have something different here, now is the time for me to 
> adjust this. So please simply tell me what to use instead ... I am 
> also glad to change anything else Adobe or Apache would like me to 
> change. This is the main reason for taking this issue to this 
> mailinglist :-) In the end I would like to have Mavenized FDKs all participants can live
I'm not sure if Adobe will want to change things like com.adobe.flash.framework or not.

There is no guarantee that Adobe will agree to hosting POMs for its pieces (and explode out
the AIR SDK, for example).  But I need to get familiar enough with it so I can ask about it.

Can the AIR SDK be in ZIP/TAR form or does it have to be broken out?

I would find it hard to believe that every other Maven artifact in the world
has a permissive license.   Do you know of any artifacts that have
proprietary licenses?  How do they handle their licensing?  If the general rule is that there
are no licensing prompts in Maven and I can point to other Adobe-like corporations who are
ok with that, then I have a better chance of getting Adobe to pass on requiring licensing

I agree for now that having folks download the Adobe stuff first is "safer"
legally, but having all of these separate downloads is a pain point (and is one of the good
things about the Installer), so getting Adobe stuff to be legitimate Maven dependencies is
currently worth a try.

Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.

View raw message