On 3/15/14 11:45 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>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. We've been conservative and don't put things in our repo that haven't been donated regardless of license. Then we download the rest, asking about licenses for optional features and not asking for Category A licenses. That's how the SDK works and how I am setting up FlexJS. > >> 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 We went over these on September 13-15 in a thread called "FlexUnit License". Hamcrest appears to be BSD, Mockolate appears to be MIT. I wonder what RAT is catching about those? What is in the MANIFEST.MF? > >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. In the SDK, we only run RAT on the source package. However we do need to know if we're depending on an incompatibly licensed library. But it appears we are not. -Alex
