@Alex, @Chris, I'd like to be in the loop with the Brian Fox communication please, if there is a way to sort out everything via Sonatype, it should be optimal and being in the loop would allow me to ask about technical things hoping to dissipate the doubts about the feasibility I still have.
Thanks, -Fred -----Message d'origine----- De : Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 22:37 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : RE: License Stuff I can't see how 1 or more pom.xml on their server could help Alex, we need artifacts and classifiers along with the project descriptor, I mean trees entire mavenized SDKs. did I miss or forgot something again :-) ? -Fred -----Message d'origine----- De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 22:32 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff Adobe did not want to deal with registration or a way to avoid the license dialog, but I'm pretty sure we got permission to put up pom.xml files on the current downloads server. On 10/29/13 2:29 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >IIRC Adobe didn't want to invest in a server just for that. > >-Fred > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre >2013 22:20 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff > > > >On 10/29/13 2:14 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Also, I can retrieve it at the moment but when I read the specific Air >>license terms, I understood it couldn't be distributed in piece but >>only in only one full and original distribution. >Yes, that's probably true, and the runtimes are part of the SDK. I >don't think they make a distribution without the runtimes. > >Just to be sure, we once talked about Adobe putting pom.xml files on >its downloads server. Have we decided that is insufficient and a >distribution agreement is better? Either way, there is some sort of a >license acceptance requirement unless we can get an exemption. > >-Alex >
