On 11/21/14, 11:25 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Any objection to another RC not the NOTICE file and 3rd party examples
>added?
I reviewed the NOTICE and it looks ok so I think you are good to go.
-Alex
Hi,
Any objection to another RC not the NOTICE file and 3rd party examples added?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
Fixed the NOTICE just waiting on the Flexilious images.
Also changed the NOTICE title to accuratly reflect what teh notice refers to ie
"Apache Flex Tour De Flex" rather than just "Apache Flex".
Justin
While researching an answer for Erik, I found the information I was
looking for on Wikipedia attributions [1]. So listing the URL for the
wikipedia content is the attribution that goes into NOTICE, so just fixing
the URL in NOTICE should be sufficient.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:R
On 11/19/14, 8:58 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>I probably won't have time to do that until after ApacheCon and I'm back
>in Australia. I'd suggest we release what we have now.
Are you suggesting releasing RC1 with the NOTICE that points to freesound
instead of wikipedia?
I’ll be happy to change
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > And from [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally
> > required."
>
> That correct but attribution IS legally required. Any license that
> requires attribution needs to be added to NOTICE. I checked with a member
> h
Hi,
> And from [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally
> required."
That correct but attribution IS legally required. Any license that requires
attribution needs to be added to NOTICE. I checked with a member here at
ApacheCon and they confirmed that is the case.
> I wish I’d
>
> Or how about this alternative? Since you aren’t linking to text from
> wikipedia and instead are copying text from wikipedia, how about we copy
> text from blogs.apache.org/flex? Then we can avoid this whole
> LICENSE/NOTICE issue completely.
>
+1
This sounds like a supremely practical way
On 11/19/14, 12:23 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>dActually, I looked and it is in LICENSE. Did we need this section in
>> NOTICE at all?
>
>I believe so for the attribution. [1] says NOTICE may need to change. [2]
>states that:
>"Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need t
Hi,
>> Sorry, looks like I missed that. I assume you meant to point to
>> Wikipedia? Why is it in NOTICE and not in LICENSE? The content looks
>> like it is CC-BY-SA which is Category A
Which may still require changes to the NOTICE file and not just from
information in other NOTICE files.
>
On 11/18/14, 9:48 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Sorry, looks like I missed that. I assume you meant to point to
>Wikipedia? Why is it in NOTICE and not in LICENSE? The content looks
>like it is CC-BY-SA which is Category A and the license and the wikipedia
>page don’t seem to have a required noti
Sorry, looks like I missed that. I assume you meant to point to
Wikipedia? Why is it in NOTICE and not in LICENSE? The content looks
like it is CC-BY-SA which is Category A and the license and the wikipedia
page don’t seem to have a required notices section.
On 11/18/14, 5:57 AM, "Justin Mclean
Hi,
Was just checking the RC and there an issue with the NOTICE file that will
probably require a new RC (look at last URL) plus I'm still waiting on the
Flexicious images.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
Please place all discussion here and not in the VOTE thread.
Thanks,
Justin
14 matches
Mail list logo
