Yup, Given that it has been this way for nearly 6 years … and it is only a few source files … and we can argue it is AL2 … then the only consideration would be the author asserting his copyright … which it looks like he never put on his code even though it is implicit.
If Justin wants to contact him directly then he is free to do so … Regards, Dave > On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:46 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Alex, Justin, > > Before you go any further into this discussion, please remember that > technically we don't even need to release the source for this. No one is > going to download the source artifacts for the Installer. > > The Installer is a convenience application we provide to our users so that > they can easily download and assemble the SDK. > > Please keep the big picture in the mind before starting another licensing > discussion. This list is very big and we don't want to waste the time with > inconsequential discussions. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> Hi Justin, >> >> I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past. Adobe Legal will >> say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there >> with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license. It would >> be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if >> it didn't already have an OS license. I suppose I could go bug some >> higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far. Maybe if >> someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that. >> >> Adobe is happy to share code. I'm happy to share code. I'm sorry you are >> not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your >> assessment of the situation. I just want our users to be able to safely >> use our code and install Flex with fewer problems. >> >> -Alex >> >> >> On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe >>> licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to >>> the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think >>> Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you >>> think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with >>> that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Justin >> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
