On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > No need to raise a legal JIRA, we don’t have to bundle this stuff. > > If they are not bundled and they are optional i.e. comply with this [1][2] > then that’s fine. > > > Let’s propose ways to make progress. Please make sure you have clarity > on > > the pieces involved before speculating on possible blockers, and then > > propose how we can proceed, not why we should stop. > > If it did turn out to be a blocker a lot of effort would be wasted, IMO it > better to look at potential issues up front and resolve them and/or find > another solution. It certainly wasn't clear that these files would not be > bundled and that they are optional. i.e. the majority of users can use what > we release without these files. > Yeah sorry about that but it was "implied" with the people in the conversation. You probably got confused because at the very least we need IMO the builtin.swc from the IDL definitions and DOM.swc bundled with a release as these would give out of the box functionality for compiling AS to JS DOM code. When I brought this up, I should have said problems with a tool that uses these or something. Mike > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited < > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited> > 2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional < > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional> > >
