+1 (binding) Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-src.tar.gz Java 1.7 OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.11.6 Source kit signatures match: y Source kit builds: y README is ok: y README_JX is ok: y RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y RELEASE_NOTES_JX is ok: y NOTICE is ok: y LICENSE is ok: y No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y No unapproved binaries in source package: y
Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz Binary kit signatures match: y NOTICE is ok: y LICENSE is ok: y No unapproved licenses or files in jars: y No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y No unapproved binaries in binary package: y ________________________________ Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 01:25:59 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1 On 9/6/16, 4:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> I believe Justin is concerned about how, when we generate the externs >> files for CreateJs by hacking their source code, that the resulting >> externs file no longer contains the CreateJS header. > >Correct. > >> It is my understanding that the externs file is not a port of existing >> implementations, but rather, a new "implementation" as well as generated >> code so retaining the CreateJS header is not required and in fact, this >> derivative work is entirely owned by the ASF. > >Have you checked your opinion holds water on legal discuss? Oracle (for >one) currently thinks otherwise and has been dragging Android though the >courts for years over a very similar issue (although it look likely they >will not prevail). Android won. I want FlexJS to win too, by shipping a release and not dragging the community through unnecessary legal nit-picking. > >Also this is not a clean room implementation [1] but one generated by >applying patches to the original 3rd party licensed code so I would >rather err on the side of caution and leave the header in. Even if that >is not required it not a licensing error to do so (and no harm done) and >omitting may be an issue and could (though unlikely) have risks. I'm pretty sure I have it right, but I'm ok with unlikely risks. If we get it wrong, or Oracle wins later, we'll change the package for the next release. Meanwhile, let's ship a release now. Thanks, -Alex
