Well, someone on the mailing list recently and quickly got a distribution agreement, but I think in this case it will take longer if you are seeking an exemption from requiring the acceptance of the license.
-Alex On 10/29/13 2:07 PM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Well it seems the is nothing like that: >http://nexus.cestpasdur.com/nexus/content/repositories/sonatype-forge/com/ >adobe/flex/framework/playerglobal/4.6.b.23201/ > >As you can see, it's as easy as accessing the URL to download the >playerglobal. > >Chris > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 21:31 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: AW: License Stuff > > > >On 10/29/13 1:13 PM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" ><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > >>But if the deal Velo and Sonatype had with Adobe was enough, I guess >>this would be all we need and we wouldn't have the hassle of having to >>implement any sort of manual deployment wrapper as I would really hate >>having to implement any sort if "interactive" maven build. >The last time I talked with Adobe Legal, the distribution agreement is >not enough. Folks must be made aware of the terms and conditions before >downloading. So, while Sonatype had the rights to allow folks to >download copies of Adobe software from Sonatype servers, someday, if >Adobe Legal ever did a review, they would have been required to have some >sort of way of ensuring that folks understood the licensing before >allowing the download. > >Does Sonatype have any such facility for doing that? Registered users >with logins? >> >>Chris >> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >>Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 21:08 >>An: dev@flex.apache.org >>Betreff: Re: License Stuff >> >>We did not pursue that approach because Apache supposedly only >>distributes source code with open licenses. Even if there was such an >>agreement, the binary packages still could not contain Adobe stuff >>because a binary package can only contain the compiled results of a >>source package. >> >>I may still set up a simple "business" to distribute the same package >>as Adobe 4.6 but a license acceptance will still be required which >>AFAIK still poses a problem for Maven. >> >>Maybe we should add some license handling to Maven itself? >> >>-Alex >> >>On 10/29/13 12:53 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Not sure if it has been already asked but can't Apache / Apache Flex >>>sign a Distribution agreement ? >>> >>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre >>>2013 17:57 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff >>> >>> >>> >>>On 10/29/13 7:16 AM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" >>><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Guys, >>>> >>>>I am currently talking to Brian Fox from Sonatype. He told me that >>>>Sonatype signed a Distribution Agreement with Adobe had been signed >>>>in 2008, but this has expired 2009, but it seems they are willing to >>>>re-sign such an Agreement. >>>> >>>>For which parts would we Need an Agreement from Adobe? As far as I >>>>know this would be the Flach Playerglobal and for Air the Airglobal >>>>and related SWCs/RSLs is there anything else? Can a Distribution >>>>Agreement be signed for all of the missing parts? >>>I believe you need the entire AIR SDK. Well, maybe not the runtimes, >>>but the packagers if you are going to support mobile output. >>> >>>> >>>>If we manage to sort this out, I guess There should be nothing else >>>>preventing us from Publishing Flex SDKs without having to implement >>>>any hacks. I guess this would help a lot of Flex users quite a lot. >>>In my last conversation with Adobe Legal, they still want folks to >>>accept the license agreement once per company. The distribution >>>agreement only gives you the right to distribute, but folks still need >>>to be aware that not every file is Apache-licensed. >>> >>>-Alex >>> >> >
