The files are not needed to be included separately in the final output, but they are compiled in to the final output. I'm not sure if this distinction makes life easier or harder for us.
-Nick On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > ...I'm still confused about how to "resolve" FLEX-53. In my > > understanding, given the current license, we aren't really looking to > > "include in a distribution" so I'm not clear we have to meet the > definition > > of "build tools"... > > IIUC the binary files mentioned in FLEX-53 are more like "build time > dependencies". > > Am I correct that they are not needed to distribute or run > applications built with Apache Flex? That's an important point. > > > ... Or is a JDK "included in a distribution" of other > > products? My main concern is the "library or lesser license" part of the > > definition... > > The JDK is not included in distribution of Apache projects that use > the Java language. > > IIUC we don't need to distribute the FLEX-53 binary files, but just > point people to them? That would be analogous to a JDK then. > > > > > I think I want to show that this is equivalent of the JDK and is a > > prerequisite to be downloaded and installed by someone... > > It looks like this is the case - my goal with FLEX-53 is to clarify > exactly how those binary files are used by Apache Flex users, so that > we have a documented explanation of how/when people are bound by the > licenses of those files. > > As discussed in this thread, not needing those files would be best, > but I assume it's much more work technically. > > -Bertrand >
