BTW, playerglobal.swc is aviable here: http://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/downloads.html
We can just note user that he needs to manually download this binary. How about that? On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> ....We discovered yesterday that playerglobal.swc is not under MPL and is >> still under Adobe license. Same for the AIR SDK.... > > What's that Adobe license exactly? URL? > >> ...I want to check my understanding of how to handle these binaries.... > > I'll try that assuming that Adobe license does not allow us to > redistribute those files. > >> >> 1. We still cannot check these into Apache Flex SVN because we don't have >> permission from Adobe to do so. >> 2. We cannot put them in either a source or binary distribution because we >> don't have permission from Adobe to do so. > > Both correct IMO. > >> 3. Since these are required files, we cannot download them as part of the >> build script. > > Not automatically, but if the user needs to take active action to > confirm that they accept using those files, and us encouraging them to > do so is not illegal, the build could download them. > > However, if Flex cannot work without them we have a problem - required > dependencies of an Apache product must have compatible licenses. > > If you can document (in JIRA I'd say) what makes you consider those > files as build tools, that relaxes some of the licensing requirements > as described at http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools > >> 4. FlashBuilder currently expects an SDK to be a folder tree contain a set >> of SWCs some of which are a result of >> compiling the Apache Flex code, but one is, for example, playerglobal.swc. >> Can we tell folks to take the source >> distribution and unzip it into the same folder tree as playerglobal.swc? Or >> does that go into dangerous territory >> where it would be confusing to someone as to what the license is for various >> files after the source distribution > + is unzipped?... > > I'll try to rephrase to make sure I understand - IIUC someone needs to > tell people to unpack the Apache Flex source distribution and mix that > with other files which do not come from Apache, in order to use > FlashBuilder which is an external tool that does not belong to us. > > I don't see a problem, we are just providing instructions about how > people can make use of Apache Flex in the FlashBuilder context, as a > convenience to them. > >> 5. Are the rules for a convenience binary distribution different? Could >> we instruct folks to unzip the binary into >> the same folder tree as playerglobal.swc? > > We can IMO, in the same way. > > -Bertrand > > -Bertrand -- С уважением, Сергей Егоров
