Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of alexei.fedotov@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CCB83EA7.47EB8%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAGc_3jEE8zaGBuj8f40T7oimawwbov0Wn9wt5_cHaaBNLihVgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CCB83EA7.47EB8%aharui@adobe.com>
From: Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 02:04:05 +0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAGc_3jHhjFwjwOq+gSMD3SBS-jDzqCmqG=wkpXqAZ8owgWeE9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 1.0.8-incubating
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

First, I'm not a lawyer. More experienced guys will tell us more.

In our project (Openmeetings) we keep the files which are not Apache
licensed in different places, e.g. at googlecode, and collect them
during the build process via wget. We do not include them into a
source release.

--
With best regards / =D1=81 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B8=D0=BB=D1=83=D1=87=D1=88=D0=B8=
=D0=BC=D0=B8 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=B6=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=B8=D1=8F=D0=BC=
=D0=B8,
Alexei Fedotov / =D0=90=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BA=D1=81=D0=B5=D0=B9 =D0=A4=D0=B5=D0=
=B4=D0=BE=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B2,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/1/12 2:50 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I mention ./LICENSE file from the source release and naturally assume
>> this is the source release license.
>> Then I assume Apache source release should be generally Apache
>> licensed. This is not necessarily true for a binary release which can
>> contain compatibly licensed components.
>>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> I think there may in fact be a problem with the LICENSE file and the
> Open_Sans font.
>
> However, I I am confused about what steps we are supposed to execute to
> address your second concern.  I'm not sure what you mean by "adding
> BSD-like...".
>
> There are two files in the source release that have a BSD license using t=
he
> Modified BSD template and substituting Adobe as the organization.  Why is=
n't
> what we did the correct way to handle this?
>>>>> 2. Something like BSD license.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can be
>>>>> resolved by adding BSD-like licensed files during build.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question is why do you use non-standard LICENSE for the source
>>>>> release?
>
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org