On 7/8/16, 12:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Now you know what changes they think they want. > >Not sure that I do. I only know what changes you have made so far (after >Adobe legal made a private request 2 months ago). As you have said >further changes may be required. > >And in that case as as far as I’m concerned then you need to take legal >responsibility for this. Call me risk adverse but I’m not willing to >second guess what Adobe legal may or may not want with this little to go >on. It is a change to the source. The PMC will be voting on it. Are you saying you will vote -1 on every release from now on because the vendor of our runtime and build libraries asked for some changes to our install script language? At some point, my Adobe legal contacts will say that some set of changes to the source are sufficient for now. Then you will know what they want. At a higher level, they want to distribute playerglobal/airglobal under the Flash, not Flex license, and make sure folks truly undertand they are accepting the terms and conditions. They could change their mind about the wording in the future. So could any of our other third-parties and customers. I don't see that the committer to acts on behalf of that external entity has to take legal responsibility other than what the ICLA says. If we installed Java and Oracle wanted a change, would you have the same response? BTW, I'm sure you realize that Adobe does have the option of not letting use cause the download of their artifacts. As an individual, not as an Adobe employee, I would do exactly what I'm doing now and politely abide by the third-party's request and not push back. Thanks, -Alex
