Actually, full text of the change not LICENSE (borrowing from the HTTPD wording)
-------- APACHE FLEX SUBCOMPONENTS: The Apache Flex Installer includes a number of subcomponents with separate copyright notices and license terms. Your use of the source code for the these subcomponents is subject to the terms and conditions of the following licenses. The Open-Sans font is available under Apache License 2.0. For details see common/src/assets/fonts/open-sans/ The NativeApplicationUpdater is available under Apache License 2.0. For details see installer/src/com/riaspace/ -------- -Alex On 6/26/14 9:07 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >Turns out this morning I heard from the hard-liner I was most concerned >about on legal-discuss. To my surprise, he also recommended #2 and >supported changing the documentation. So I've added the following to the >installer license: > >The Open-Sans font is available under Apache License 2.0. For details >see common/src/assets/fonts/open-sans/ > >The NativeApplicationUpdater is available under Apache License 2.0. >For details see installer/src/com/riaspace/ > >I now have to upgrade my AIR SDKs and then start working on Rcs. > > >-Alex > >On 6/26/14 1:09 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >>I'd go with option 1, as I think Alex's arguments are based on the text >>and >>spirit of Apache's own documentation and legal advise, but since that >>would >>keep this endless (and as it turns out unnecessary) discussion alive, I >>suggest we go with option 2. Justin obviously won't give up on this, nor >>will he change his mind, not even when presented with what are to me >>pretty >>convincing arguments, so let's give him this "win" and move on. >> >>EdB >> >> >> >>On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> This crossed paths with my other reply. I do not think we should go >>>with >>> #2, but if you and Justin feel this is the right thing to do, then >>>that's >>> what we'll do. I'm out of time for tonight, but will start on prepping >>> Rcs with #2 tomorrow. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 6/25/14 11:32 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >Alex, if you don't have an objection to #2, let's go with that? >>> > >>> >Thanks, >>> >Om >>> >On Jun 25, 2014 11:16 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 6/25/14 11:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> >>>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> >+1 for 2 as : >>> >> >- that's easy to do >>> >> >- complies with legal requirements re acknowledging copyright >>>(which >>> >>are >>> >> >in addition to the license terms in some locations) >>> >> I do not believe the legal-discuss folks agree that there is a legal >>> >> requirement, otherwise they would require us to change LICENSE and >>> >>NOTICE >>> >> which they have not. >>> >> >>> >> >- is in an obvious place for users to see >>> >> >- there is precedence in other projects >>> >> > >>> >> >Justin >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Ix Multimedia Software >> >>Jan Luykenstraat 27 >>3521 VB Utrecht >> >>T. 06-51952295 >>I. www.ixsoftware.nl >
