Again inline prefixed by "Alex:"
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:03 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss.
I've already asked on general@icubator - given they deal with LICENCE an
dNOTICE all of the time it seemed a good place to ask.
I guess I missed that. I saw you ask about the IP clearance issue.
> Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not
> including the full text of the MIT and BSD licenses in the LICENSE file.
Then why do you want to add BSD back into LICENCE? Adding the short or long
version has the same effect legally and is not required for source
distributions (see below).
Alex: I don't want to add BSD to license. My interpretation of the document is
that we just have to say what I suggested, that some files are under BSD. No
need to include any text from the BSD license.
> Apache does not have a license to those files.
Not sure what you mean there, they are licensed under BSD and by the terms of
the BSD licence we can use the source code as long as we leave the headers in
place. Note that it's only a binary distribution that requires the BSD licence
to be placed elsewhere. That's 2 of the 3 clauses of the BSD licence.
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The header are the only place the BSD license is found in FlexUnit 1 [1] -
there is no LICENSE file or anything else.
Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to
sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under
the AL. That plus my interpretation that the LICENSE file should warn folks
that there are non-AL files in the distributions means that these files may not
truly be part of Apache. I've asked on the legal-discuss thread how/why it
makes a difference if we check in BSD files into the repo vs downloading them
from some other non-Apache source.
-Alex
