On 5/11/17, 1:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> This stuff is so non-important. > >I disagree. This stuff is important. ASF takes licensing seriously. >People use our software because of that. Remember that we have learned from legal-discuss that we can use trust and intent of our upstream providers. I believe the vast majority of the PMC wants to do so. Not all issues are of equal importance, just like in code. It is great when you find the big issues, especially if you take the advice of experienced ASF members and watch the commits. Every action we take, every email we write, should be done with consideration of how it helps our community grow. Sure, sometimes that means doing something to follow policy and uphold the ASF's and the project's reputation, but otherwise we should be making it appear that it is fun and easy to contribute to Apache Flex and someday be a PMC member and release manager. It is the intent of the CreateJS community to share their code, otherwise they wouldn't have put it up on GitHub with a permissive license. It is the intent of every author of an Externs file to help that library's community share their code, but it turns out that the creation of an Extern strips all copyrightable material from the original source. But in the 0.7.0 release, there were still copyrightable comments in the file. People will not stop using Apache Flex or Apache software if someone points that out. It could have waited several releases, just like we will defer some bugs several releases. Mistakes happen, trust will not go away from a single well-intended mistake. > >If this is so unimportant why are you not letting make changes and have >gone as far as to say you will veto changes? > >> Why must we keep spending time on this? > >Because unresolved issues in previous releases and licensing issue need >be addressed by the PMC as per ASF policy. > >There is a really easy fix that make this at worse a documentation issue >rather than a licensing one why are you so reluctant to fix this? This is so frustrating. The answer is because it isn't broken. There is nothing to fix. The creation of the list resulted in a file of non-copyrightable material. That's why I went and tried to make sure all copyrightable comments were removed. Do you agree with legal-discuss that such a list is non-copyrightable? If it is non-copyrightable, why would you put an MIT header with someone else's copyright on it? That is not logical to me. Doing so would create a licensing error. What we have now is at worst a documentation error. Now I did add a few lines to the top to mark the file as an Externs file. IMO, this file either needs the ASF header or no header, but certainly not someone else's MIT header. It is time to get a release out. -Alex
