incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:28:46 GMT
I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
are "release blockers"

1.  incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
2.  incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
3.  incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
4.  incorrect path to the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
5.  in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root
when we packaged everything.

The issues that have been resolved are:

1.  Om has published his public key
2.  EOL at EOF not a blocker

Carol

On 11/2/12 10 :11AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
>>wrote:
>>> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it had
>>> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license
>>>headers...
>>> How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
>> 
>> RAT takes an exclusion list for such cases - if those files come from
>> an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
>> license headers.
>> 
>> -Bertrand
>So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
>
>-- 
>Alex Harui
>Flex SDK Team
>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>


Mime
View raw message