Hi, > Matrix.as [4] currently has the following added by me: > > // Implementation derived fromL > // https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/openfl/geom/Matrix.hx > // available under MIT License. > > I added this after the release.
Which is OKish but we are not complying with it’s MIT license terms. > This is because whatever code Harbs did > borrow came from a file that did not have a header. What policy or > precedent are you saying requires the synthesis of a header on behalf of > OpenFL? It’s come up a few times and advice has been on occasion to add a header but the answer may be it depends.The MadLib project has a similar issue (on a larger scale), advice was not to add headers, which is causing all sort of issues and is still open and needs to be sorted before graduation. Roy did state in that thread about that that adding an ASF header and a short comment (as has been done here) is not correct [1] - “Adding a comment after an inaccurate ASF header does not do the trick.”. > Remember that a senior Apache member recommended filing an > upstream issue in this email [5]. That refers to a missing NOTICE file which is a different issue, how notice files are handled is ASF policy and 3rd parties don’t need to follow that. That's not to do with complying with the terms of a 3rd party license which applies to everyone (including us). > Given that the source header policy [2] says not to modify third-party > headers, it seems odd to be modifying a third-party license file. Policy is not to remove or modify existing copyright or licenses (point 1). Modify here would refer to changing the terms of the license. Including the full text of the 3rd party license could be done but it this case it would be a documentation issue as it would refer to things that we don't actually bundled i.e this part "This product bundles SoundJS 0.6 …” would be incorrect as we don’t bundle SoundJS. > Have you seen a past decision that it is ok to synthesize or subset a > third-party > LICENSE file in order to use a pointer instead a copy? Yes it happened with Apache Flex releases, we taken bits we know are bundled and added those to license rather than the whole original license. I also seen it it other projects where they have taken parts of bootstrap. Is it clearly spelt out in a policy document? No not that I can find, but if a 3rd party license refers to A + B and you are only bundling A then there no need to mention B. The guiding principle of only mentioning what is actually bundled would also apply here. Sightly different but it's also done when we have dual licensed bundled bits, we select the license we want and ignore the one we don’t want. > We have noted that portions of this file came from someone else under a > different license. The copyright owner and full text are in LICENSE [6]. That text was not in the release, this has been added after the release by yourself so it would seem that you agree it needed to be added. [2] It’s still missing the full text for Flat UI. > To me, [5] recommends having the FlatUI folks make changes so their use of > the MIT license is “compliant" Again that link refers to a missing NOTICE file in 3rd party code not licensing or headers. > Otherwise, it seems odd for you to synthesize a version of the MIT license on > their > behalf in our repo. OK so how do you suggest we abide by the terms of the MIT license if we don’t (as it states) include the text of the license? > One you add a header to make a file third-party, can you remove the header > later? I see no issue with that. > I guess I don't understand why we should be ignoring the advice in [5]. We’re not. Abiding by ASF policy on NOTICE files is optional by 3rd parties, abiding by licensing terms is required by all. > I won't veto any changes for OpenFL and Flat Good I’ll make the changes. Thanks, Justin
