incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carol Frampton <>
Subject Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:46:56 GMT

On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <> wrote:

>I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
>are "release blockers"
>1.  incorrect headers in and
>2.  incorrect path to and in the LICENSE file
>3.  incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file

This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans.

It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open Sans
fonts, at least according to this [1].
The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google Corporation
but the license is Apache v2.

I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE file
since the general Apache license applies to them.



>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
>On 11/2/12 10 :11AM, "Alex Harui" <> wrote:
>>On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <>
>>>> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it
>>>> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license
>>>> 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.

View raw message