On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > I would find it hard to believe that every other Maven artifact in the world > has a permissive license. Do you know of any artifacts that have > proprietary licenses? How do they handle their licensing? If the general > rule is that there are no licensing prompts in Maven and I can point to > other Adobe-like corporations who are ok with that, then I have a better > chance of getting Adobe to pass on requiring licensing dialogs. > > I agree for now that having folks download the Adobe stuff first is "safer" > legally, but having all of these separate downloads is a pain point (and is > one of the good things about the Installer), so getting Adobe stuff to be > legitimate Maven dependencies is currently worth a try.
With most projects I've been involved in I've had to manually download non-permissive stuff and host it in a company repo like Artifactory. I think it's a bit of an unfortunate fact of our existence that Flex, for a while at least, will be dependent on non-open source libraries like the Flash runtime. It may mean that somebody can't just declare a dependency to our code in their POM file and be off and running. We may have to document that users will need to manually download and install the Adobe stuff before the Flex code will be of any use to them. At least that's the worst case scenario. Greg
