www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Date Sun, 06 Sep 2015 15:03:43 GMT
Actually, the better question might be:

Is the fact that we have examples and samples in the binary package of
ActionScript files with AL headers but the JS output in the package does
not have headers a release blocker?  Must we add this feature to the
compiler and/or post-process the JS files before releasing this binary

Thanks in advance,

On 9/6/15, 7:52 AM, "Richard Eckart de Castilho" <rec@apache.org> wrote:

>I'm not a lawyer and I am definitely not one of the senior Apaches around
>so take my word with a grain of salt ;)
>I don't think that would preserving headers would be a blocker. If your
>really want to have these headers in, they could post-process your output
>and add them back. After all, they are their headers.
>Even without fully preserving comments, it shouldn't be too hard to add a
>configuration option to the transpiler to prefix each transformed file
>the contents of some file or variable and your users might appreciate
>That said, I just remembered one thing to consider: if your transpiled
>contains substantial amounts of code that are not immediately generated
>the input but rather constitute something like a runtime, than that
>should probably bear an Apache header. I would assume that any such a
>would be shipped in separate files to keep a strong separation between
>"transpiled" and "supplemental" code.
>-- Richard
>On 06.09.2015, at 16:34, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Richard and Paul.  Looks like some transpilers offer the option
>> copying over source headers.
>> One last question: one the fact that the Flex compiler does not
>> do that be a release blocker or can we add that in a future release?
>> Thanks in advance,
>> -Alex
>> On 9/6/15, 2:07 AM, "Richard Eckart de Castilho" <rec@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> Apache Flex has a cross-compiler (aka transpiler).  It takes
>>>>> ActionScript
>>>>> as an input source language and cross-compiles it into JavaScript.
>>>>> you
>>>>> are familiar with TypeScript and its compiler, it is pretty similar.
>>>>> The
>>>>> binary package for the compiler contains some of these cross-compiled
>>>>> .js
>>>>> files as output.  We are pondering whether we should add ASF headers
>>>>> these files or some header like: “Generated by Apache Flex
>>>>> Cross-Compiler”
>>>>> or leave it as is.
>>>>> IMO, it isn’t source.  Yes, folks can modify it and should be able
>>>>> do
>>>>> so under AL.  Thoughts, opinions, precedence?
>>>> IMHO the output of the transpiler should be under the same license as
>>>> the
>>>> input, not under the AL. So if you can preserve a license header (or
>>>> basically
>>>> any comments from the input file) during the transformation, I guess
>>>> that
>>>> would be the best option. Of course adding a "This is code generated
>>>> from
>>>> file X by Y version Z on DATE" would be useful. It could also be
>>>> to allow users to turn the addition of such a header off or to allow
>>>> them customizing it.
>>> Regarding precedence: I guess look at any macro preprocessor for any
>>> language
>>> or even any compiler. Some vendors impose limits on the output of the
>>> transformer
>>> (I believe Microsoft does it with some versions Visual Studio), but I
>>> haven't seen
>>> such limits on any FOSS transformers so far.
>>> -- Richard
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message