Hi, > IMO, swfobject must be removed from the repo. I don't think the folks who > signed the SGA had the right to donate SWFObject.
If the file contains the correct licence (ie MIT) is that still an issue? With MIT licences file you are allowed to redistribute the files as long as you leave the MIT licence intact - which removing the Apache header has done that. These files do not end up in the source or binary releases so it's not actually not a dependancy at this point. > OK, can you list out the files and their incompatible licenses so the > Labriola or some other FlexUnit expert can tell us if they are for > required features? Unapproved licenses after a full build/download 3rd party artefacts. /flex-flexunit/FlexUnit4/libs/hamcrest-LICENSE /flex-flexunit/FlexUnit4AntTasks/target/bin/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF /flex-flexunit/FlexUnit4Test/libs/hamcrest-LICENSE /flex-flexunit/FlexUnit4Test/libs/mock-as3-LICENSE /flex-flexunit/FlexUnit4Test/libs/mockolate-LICENSE IMO the LICENCE files can be added to rat exclusion as we can't add an apache licence to them without violating their licences and we can ignore the manifest.mf file. Hamcrest mock-as3 and mockolate are listed in the LICENSE.bin file. The manifest.mf file in not included in the source or binary releases. Thanks, Justin
