+1. There’s lot’s useful stuff in AS3Commons.
On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It has been my understanding that any existing code base that gets stored > in an Apache Flex repo must be "donated" via the Apache Software Grant > process, which essentially requires that the author of every line of code > in the code base needs to sign a legally-binding document. > > I just found out that, while that is still the preferred method, if a code > base is already under the Apache License, it can also be "adopted" with > much less hassle. > > Christophe Herreman, who also happens to be on our PMC, and one of the > major contributors to AS3Commons, is interested in having Apache Flex > adopt the AS3Commons code. I think this would be a good move for Apache > Flex because we use some of AS3Commons in the Installer already so it > would be good to have this code in a place we can control, especially if > we want to see how much of it will work in FlexJS. > > So, first we should discuss whether we want to adopt AS3Commons and > actually vote on it, then we will try to contact by email every past > contributor to AS3Commons to see if they have any objections to having the > code base adopted by Apache Flex. The wording of the email is still being > finalized on the Apache legal-discuss mailing list, but basically, instead > of having to track down every past contributor and get their signature on > a Software Grant, we can now just gather email responses from as many of > those past contributors as we can. > > After the email goes out, we'll wait 30 days or so for responses. If we > get an objection from a past contributor, then we'll look to see what > lines of code they contributed and determine what the impact would be of > not having those lines of code in our code base. It might be easily > replaceable. If we don't hear from a past contributor we will look at the > risk of what might happen if they do respond later with an objection. > > So, we don't have to actually hear from every past contributor in order to > proceed with the adoption, but we might decide not to complete the > adoption if we get objections from or don't get a response from a major > contributor. > > Technically and legally, we could "fork" this code without permission from > anybody since the code is under the Apache License, but socially, Apache > wants all code to come in voluntarily, which is why we want to make sure > there are no objections from past contributors as well as anyone on this > mailing list. > > Thoughts? > -Alex >
