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 15:29:39 GMT
I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another
pass on the changes.

Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should
be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there.
It is called temp.12.  I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should
remove it from the kit.

Carol

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405005&view=rev

On 11/2/12 11 :03AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> 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 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
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide.  If
>a
>third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
>need mention in LICENSE.  And does the copyright go some place for
>binaries
>like a .TTF file?
>
>-- 
>Alex Harui
>Flex SDK Team
>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>


Mime
View raw message