On 12/29/14, 1:16 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>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. According to what documents? I see that my question was ambiguous. The question is whether a binary dependency can simply be downloaded and packaged or must we download the its source and compile it in order to package it in the binary package? > >> -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. Agree that it isn’t an error which is why I think it is the RM’s decision. > >> 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. How did you determine that no source from Ant is mixed into the saxon jar? I didn’t see any whole classes with org.apache.ant in the package, but that may not be the full story. -Alex
