Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cframpto@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.233 as permitted sender)
From: Carol Frampton <cframpto@adobe.com>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:46:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Thread-Topic: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Thread-Index: Ac25COjGQNU4KEA8Q+6kRMff0luFBQ==
Message-ID: <CCB95438.1E2CF%cframpto@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CCB94DEC.1E2B0%cframpto@adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


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 =A9 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.

Carol

[1] http://www.google.com/webfonts/attribution

>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)?
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> -Bertrand
>>So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
>>
>>--=20
>>Alex Harui
>>Flex SDK Team
>>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>
>