On 11/28/12 10:09 AM, "Kevin Newman" <capta...@unfocus.com> wrote:
> What's required for the legal ok? Is that like a full copyright/patent
> audit? Or is it more of checking the license requirements, or getting
> signoff from the current copyright holder? Or both? Or something else? :-)
>
> It's already licensed under Apache 2.0, so that's a good start.
If it is under Apache license, then all we need is a software grant from the
owner.
But we can certainly use it without modification as an external dependency
today.
>
> Anyway, a lot of the current popular plan seems to revolve around doing
> direct bindings from Flex into JS/DOM objects and not using a Flash
> layer at all, so it does seem like it may not be needed. Still, it seems
> like an option, and there is useful core items in there, like
> BitmapData, etc. that are already implemented.
>
> Maybe the legal overhead outweighs the benefits of an already completed
> code base?
Well, I'm not currently seeing a need for it, but if other folks do, they
have to weigh the tradeoffs and make their own decision.
>
> Kevin N.
>
>
> On 11/28/12 12:47 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I don't think we need it. But if folks want to try, they need to make sure
>> it is legally ok with Apache if we do so.
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
