Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C08200C61 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 03287160BB3; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 49030160B8E for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:03:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 29715 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2017 21:03:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 29704 invoked by uid 99); 25 Apr 2017 21:03:16 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 99EBCC074C for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.481 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zPR9QQ5b0y0z for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com (mail-qt0-f175.google.com [209.85.216.175]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 564DC5F20C for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c45so150929752qtb.1 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:03:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zMqs0gK869yRQMKsxUcR1e09C3fJ1RxTm2rVCAH6KRM=; b=OkrnDLg8925rS4MMsVJ8vMiEHldX5eN3im3QBHdEiFvOgz8VCqdR8Z89PeldY8IdyF mTothaXaVcvaOJGP8Cru5NIqMRLqdibf+5z5iyQ+wyKkNfpcldTP0IkcWBl9DkyRMM7P yPLPDayjdlYmq6xB2AZMU9YM2WyIsNyuSIVpJlNBcLuOS3EHYeU46fdnIaZHgWAyL7ZS SduMApo9GD0V9BgnreE3OOo2soYnzbrWv6NUgA9GXp7qo31c0aaO1Gl9lfJyrC5oNhw6 f3608tvHPdkTWTEjtM4x3csnGe55ooDUf0q39fVvcyB7BzOVeH8qQlBfwEoy4mDCY9VN 1Xtw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/73avVfaZadIc4Vs1DCCQzZDZof53SQrxQ0Ziq+kpcH+h3hDdpo VVw8wnUPAfA+dDJLZxk= X-Received: by 10.200.53.187 with SMTP id k56mr32546765qtb.69.1493154192835; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [137.79.199.213] ([137.79.199.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c26sm15954699qte.19.2017.04.25.14.03.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:03:10 -0700 Subject: Re: Is it OK to remove MIT header in this case? From: Chris Mattmann To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Is it OK to remove MIT header in this case? References: <280FC044-6E71-4294-9022-23FFD61E5C63@classsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <280FC044-6E71-4294-9022-23FFD61E5C63@classsoftware.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit archived-at: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:03:18 -0000 Hi Justin, To my knowledge, we do not remove headers on source code files. Cheers, Chris On 4/25/17, 2:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: Hi, As part of the build process Flex uses this patch file [1] to 3rd party MIT licensed code [2]. Part of the patch is removing the MIT license header - should it do this? Adobe legal was asked (off list) and they come back with the copyright is owned by Adobe, [3] but IMO it still not clear that ASF policy would allow for the header to be removed. [4] Any suggestions on how to handle this? Thanks, Justin 1. https://github.com/apache/flex-typedefs/blob/master/createjs/src/main/patch/tweenjs.patch 2. https://github.com/CreateJS/TweenJS/blob/master/src/tweenjs/Tween.js 3. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/132d2d65017befe599e4f5fd2e1b148b35bce81f2eae7a4e0a5501d0@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E 4. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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