Hi, > -Can a binary package bundle a binary without its source?
The answer is yes to that, and in fact we a little unusual as we do include the SDK source in a binary release. > -Was there any past discussion that caused the Installer to ask about > accepting SWFObject’s MIT License? At worse it's a licensing issue but it not an licensing error as either way the minimal licensing requirements have been met. I don't think it's required for the user to accept it license but we can still release with asking that. > Meanwhile, I’m still puzzling over which Saxon NOTICES apply. That seems reasonably straight forward, from a quick look some of them have no effect (eg ant apache as there's no bundling and resolver is public domain) and some need to be aded to LICENSE (cern(?), frijters, james clark, legal + license and unicode) and only that I can see to notice (xerces). Cern might be a concern. I'll have some time later this week to check. Thanks, Justin
