And am I correct, that you only need the Embedded Fonts if you are actually embedding fonts. Flex would work fine without those 4 libs if you don't use the font encoding?
Its just that I don't want to proceed in a direction that would make us release stuff that can't work on ist own. I would also have to have a look how to add something to the plugin classpath as playerglobal and airglobal are added to the application classpath and the font-embedding needs to go to the plugins classpath. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 20. September 2014 16:15 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: List of dependencies Hi Chris, OK, so the jars you are interested in aren't in Maven Central. The Adobe stuff in Maven Central appears to have open licenses. The installer shows you the sets of external dependencies (from memory): AIR SDK, PlayerGlobal, BlazeDS, Embedded Fonts, OSMF, SWFObject. SWFObject is under MIT so we probably don't really need to ask folks about it, and we could bundle it in the future. OSMF is under MPL so I don't think Adobe cares that folks accept its license. BlazeDS is under MPL, as well. In future Apache Flex releases, this will no longer be an external dependency. I'm pretty sure the compiler only uses one or two classes from one BlazeDS jar. We don't even really need to release BlazeDS to remove this dependency, we could change our build script to pull those two classes. Embedded Fonts is under Adobe license so it needs to be treated like AIR SDK and PlayerGlobal. It is four jars, and you only truly need to ask once for the set of four, not for each one. HTH, -Alex On 9/20/14 1:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I >hate this discussion fragmentation) > >I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air artifacts, >but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about one >font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was an >assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often and I >was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo deployed >back in the old days when he still did that. > >From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from Adobe >and Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the stuff. At >first I was thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air artifacts at >Sonatype and us releasing our stuff at Apache with both ending up in >Maven central. But Sonatype explained that the permit had expired and >Adobe didn't want to renew it. So that door is closed. > >I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after >Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal >and the feature seems to be working nicely. > >Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open repo: >https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compil >er~ >afe~~~ >Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash so >I was thinking about referencing this artifact for example: >https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/content >/co m/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar > >My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and >airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I >doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling >the same way. I would become more and more a hack. > >Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we still >rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start finding >solutions to where to get them from or how to make the build-system >cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check if afe is >present only if font encoding is being used in the project and >eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this for >every external and optional dependency. > >Chris > > > >________________________________________ >Von: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash >Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> >Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: List of dependencies > >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Om, >> >> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them >>with the search facility. Can you post the URLs? >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> >Here is what I found: > >http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe >http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos > >Chris can probably give you the correct list. > >Thanks, >Om > > >> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what >> >> >is >> >>the >> >> >best way to move forward? >> >> > >> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good >> >> >enough >>for >> >>us, >> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe? >> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked >>Adobe >> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the >> >> Adobe >>EULA >> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The >>sense >> >>I >> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there >> >>are under open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven >> >>extension to do that. >> >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask >> >>Adobe Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded >> >>without explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me >> >>to remove >>all >> >>of >> >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok. >> >> >> >> >> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they >> >are today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license >>agreement UI >> >action. >> > >> >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others? >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on >>Maven, >> >>so >> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing. >> >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. >>If >> >>I >> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fair enough :-) >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Om >> > >> > >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> >> >>
