On 22 August 2014 19:46, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Good questions, I have asked the grantor about that one source file.
> Maybe incubator folks with more experience can help answer these questions.
>
I am no an Incubator IP-clearance specialist, but I give my input based on
my industrial experience.
>
> 1) Regarding the package matching the grant. The code base granted was
> not going to pass IP clearance. It needed headers and a proper LICENSE
> and NOTICE. I was given authority by the grantor to update headers. I
> took the granted software, added headers, threw out a few files (with the
> grantor's permission) I found while doing so that would not pass IP
> clearance and presented that package for review. Folks with more
> experience: is this a correct procedure or should I have proceeded some
> other way?
>
In my opinion you did the right thing, but I could not find the process you
ran through documented.
I would have liked to see a txt file, documenting
1) that you changed the files, of course with permission
2) which files you removed.
Having done that, would have avoided questions, and it was documented for
the future.
> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">" and
> ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc). My scanners did not
> pick up any copyright notices in those files. Folks with more experience:
> Does the grantor need to provide proof-positive in order to get clearance,
> or do we trust the provenance if there is no evidence to the contrary?
>
> 3) Is there a restriction agains PSD files? We have some checked into SVN
> for our website already.
>
Remark there is a big difference between having content (in general) on a
web page, or part of a release
> 4) Is the grantor of a code base required to do pre-donation scrubbing in
> public? Every Adobe donation I worked on was scrubbed internally then a
> grant was submitted and a package submitted for IP clearance. I would
> think many grantors would not want to have the scrub public as early
> scrubs could end up naming names or discovering potentially embarrassing
> mis-use of IP.
>
It would not be wise to require public scrubbing, and nothing speaks
against informing the grantor what needs to done, and let the grantor do a
scrubbed release.
I can painfully confirm, that many grantor dont like public scrubbing or
for that matter being publicly told that they have license problems, that
is something best kept off-public.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 8/21/14 8:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Mostly good but -1 (binding) as it still needs a little more clean up
> >
> >First off the code in bundle for IP clearance doesn't match what is
> >recorded in the grant. The grant specifies this [1]. Not sure if this is
> >a major issue or not but I expected them to be the same.
> >
> >While the Github repo only has one user, some of the code varies in style
> >which may indicate that the code came from multiple people/sources and is
> >of unknown licence. For example concatenateMetaDataXMLItems in
> >ClasSUtils.as in com.flexcapacitor.utils. A quick google search turns up
> >the same code here [2] which a) predates the code being in the github
> >repo and may of been where the code may of came from. Of course not easy
> >to tell but this at least needs confirmation that this is not an issue.
> >I notice that this file may incorrectly have an Apache licence header but
> >they depends on the license of the code in question. In the same file I
> >also see isSimple which looks like it was copied from the Flex SDK (not
> >an issue just an observation) but could also indicate that source in this
> >file has come from various different places. I only checked a couple of
> >methods in that file and only a few likely files so there may be other
> >files/methods with similar issues in the donation.
> >
> >Solution is to get the donor to double check that all code was written by
> >then and/or has a compatible licence, in particular when the style is
> >different.
> >
> >There are also possibly some icons than may have non compatatble licences
> >in there. I'm not aware of the original license of the icons but as most
> >icons have been blacked out I assume that it was a non compatible one.
> >
> >Here are some of the non blacked out ones. I may of missed some.
> >
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/divider_vertical.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more2.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead_light.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead.png
> >
> >Easy solution is to black out these files - assuming they have an
> >incompatible licence that is.
> >
> >A minor issue may exist with the binary file PortraitMode.psd. Does this
> >need to be a photoshop file or can it be converted to a different format?
> >If not are we OK with photoshop files in the repo?
> >
> >I'll also note that these issues could of been fixed before bringing it
> >to the incubator if the Flex PMC rather than a single person had been
> >involved in grant process.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
> >
> >1 https://github.com/monkeypunch3/Radii8/tree/ApacheFlexRelease1.0
> >2. http://pastebin.com/b5zPNGWF
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
