Hi, The discussion on legal-discuss has died down [1] and this as I see it the consensus: 1. Notify upstream and ask them to fix their issue. 2. Only parts of the license that relate to what is actually bundled needs to be included. 3. When missing retrospectively adding headers and copyright for a 3rd party file is recommended (but not required). 4. Where copyright is not clear add a header but not the copyright line.
So given the above are their any objections for me to: - Fix header and copyright for OpenFL - Fix header and copyright for CreateJS - Add header but not copyright for FlatUI (see discussion below) I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for OpenFL and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI. For FlatUI there are 14 contributors to the repo [2] one main one (who looks to be no longer involved) and 3 other significant ones. There’s no obvious connection between them and designmodo (that I could find) other than they contributed to this repo. The license was originally CC BY 3.0 but changed to MIT in 2013 early in the projects history. [3] Their web site does claim copyright [4] but copyright is not stated on the github repo (even under the copyright and license section) [5]. So while it may be reasonable to assume designmodo are the copyright owners it's certainly possible that the other contributors have claims as well and it may be that all copyright holders did not give permission for their code to be relicensed. Thanks, Justin 1. https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201609.mbox/%3cd4077465.75c8d%25aha...@adobe.com%3e 2. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/graphs/contributors 3. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/issues/18 4. http://designmodo.com/flat-free/ 5. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI
