On 9/15/16, 7:09 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't have an answer to your question. However, considering that there >is >disagreement on who should have copyright, and the original license is one >that we can use, I don't see a risk in keeping their header. We can use >the >code either way. Sure we can use it either way, but I'm sure the ASF would not be happy if we started putting the CreateJS header on our other source files. If we really need to settle this, we should drag in legal-discuss, but I believe the least-energy solution is to see if CreateJS will take responsibility for the externs. Any volunteers? -Alex > >- Josh > >On Sep 15, 2016 4:40 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/15/16, 4:17 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Wouldn't it be easier to leave the originally license header intact, >>even >> >if it may not necessarily be required, than to try to convince another >> >community to take ownership of the code? >> >> Not sure. If we give them copyright and we shouldn't have, can we take >>it >> back? >> >> In the long term, I think if it isn't too hard to get the CreateJS >> community to take over the externs, then we don't have to deal with >> maintaining the patch files that generate the externs. It is pretty >> fragile stuff. If CreateJS adds new APIs to both their library and the >> externs at the same time, we won't have to deal with the patch process >>not >> working. Same is true for any other third-party library. If FlexJS is >> successful, every third-party JS framework will want to have externs for >> FlexJS and it will be more efficient for both communities of the >> third-party community controls their externs. That we we aren't >>bothered >> with handling patches from them, etc. >> >> -Alex >> >>
