On 11/2/12 8:29 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another
> pass on the changes.
>
> Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should
> be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there.
> It is called temp.12. I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should
> remove it from the kit.
Carol, can you modify the comment in the RAT excludes to say that the
license is Modified BSD (which is Category A), not Adobe (which is not
Apache-compatible). Adobe is just the copyright holder. Modified BSD is a
template where you substitute in the copyright holder's name.
>> That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide. If
>> a
>> third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
>> need mention in LICENSE. And does the copyright go some place for
>> binaries
>> like a .TTF file?
Bertrand, do we need to mention in the LICENSE file that the Open-Sans font
we got from Google WebFonts is under Apache license? Or are Apache licensed
items never mentioned in LICENSE?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
