IMO, it would be best if code we can't use never hits the ASF repos. We should make sure we have a good copy somewhere maybe in a volunteer's account on GitHub, or maybe there is already a good one out there, so we don't lose the code from the internet. Then, we should probably get a flex-as3commons repo from Infra. After that, as along as code is clearly licensed with ALv2, you should be able to copy as many or few files as you want into our repo and do whatever you want and massage it into a release.
-Alex On 7/6/16, 7:22 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Would we have to do this for all and then start building and releasing >parts, or would it be ok to accept all and just release stuff that we >have done the license clearance for? If the first could apply, I would >like to help here, but If I have to do all of that license stuff for all >of these modules at once, I would probably start whistling a tune and >pretending not to have read your email [?] > > >And would Justin help me with this? > > >Chris > >________________________________ >Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juli 2016 16:07:40 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopting AS3Commons > > > >On 7/6/16, 5:47 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>That approach makes sense. We could put it in a "legacy" folder and bring >>in pieces as they seem needed or folks have time to sanitize the code - >>possibly with a different package structure. > >Incrementally adopting AS3Commons is a fine approach as well. What we >really need is a volunteer to make it happen and record the adoption as >requested in by the board. Volunteers can grab as much code as they wants >as long as the volunteer will investigate the dependencies and hold off on >stuff that may not have a full chain of source code with ALv2-compatible >licensing. > >-Alex >
