You are correct it isn't explicit in a policy doc but my interpretation of
kevan's post on legal discuss is that we can use text like I proposed.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
> Justin,
>
> To see if we're on the same page, my take away fro
Hi,
> Justin,
>
> To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on
> legal-discuss and general@incubator is that we must put a simple pointer into
> LICENSE. Something like:
>
>"The following folders contain some source files under BSD:
> FlexUnit4UIListene
UIListener
FlexUnit4CIListener"
And then we're good to go. Did you reach the same conclusion?
-Alex
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:44 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release
Hi,
> Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to
> sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under
> the AL.
Which has no effect on the current release, the 70 odd Adobe files out of the
2000+ files have correct headers (now) and
Again inline prefixed by "Alex:"
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:03 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Alex: Ok, I'll as
Hi,
> Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss.
I've already asked on general@icubator - given they deal with LICENCE an
dNOTICE all of the time it seemed a good place to ask.
> Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not
> including the full text of the MIT and BSD li
Apologies for the email formatting. My replies prefixed by "Alex:"
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 4:50 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
Hi,
I've asked on general@icubator to see if anyone can resolve this.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> Aren't you going to cut an RC4?
No until the license issue is resolved, otherwise it just a waste of time.Looks
like no committers have even tested any of the previous three RCs because of
this issue.
> All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or
> LICENSE s
results with your -1 in it. If you don't
want to spend any more time not the Installer let me know and I'll just close
the vote as is.
-Alex
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:26 PM
To: dev@flex.ap
HI,
> We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire
> BSD license). See where it says "add a pointer" in
> https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
This would apply if we where bundling an entire MIT/BSD dependant project and
not just a few files.
All o
HI,
> NOTICE and LICENSE look ok, but I still think we need to mention somewhere
> that there is BSD code in this source distribution.
> We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire
> BSD license).
There is no need to do so for MIT or BSD licences to be menti
..@spoon.as]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:45 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
It looks like the asdocs are missing for this... In each of the binary
packages + source packages there is a docs folder, but it is empty.
I am working on migrati
It looks like the asdocs are missing for this... In each of the binary
packages + source packages there is a docs folder, but it is empty.
I am working on migrating the FlexUnit tutorials on the website (not
complete yet). http://flex.staging.apache.org/flexunit/tutorial/Should
have it compl
Hi,
> I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and ensure
> it behaves as expected.
Thanks Mike much appreciated.
Given the changes between RC3 and what will be RC4 consist of 2 header files
changes I will be carrying over votes.
So if you vote +1 on RC3 that will car
>Do anyone have any any objections to the current RC (copyright or otherwise)
>before I go to the effort of making another one? Has anyone actually tested
>the current RC for things that actually matter? Like that the signed fields
>are correct, it can compile and it actually works? I would like
HI,
> I think the correct and faster choice is to put adobe headers in those two
> files
Done.
IMO This was not required for all sort of reasons previously discussed and this
would apply here [1] and they certainly wouldn't pass [2]. There is no code in
those two files they are just very si
I think the correct and faster choice is to put adobe headers in those two files
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
"Michael A. Labriola" wrote:
>My understanding is that Adobe donated stuff to fluint under Adobe copyright
>and BSD. That's why you put the Adobe header b
>My understanding is that Adobe donated stuff to fluint under Adobe copyright
>and BSD. That's why you put the Adobe header back in a bunch of files. My
>view says that two of these Adobe files are in CIListener. I think we need
>Mike to verify or provide a more detailed explanation of how th
On 3/30/14 11:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> You can check fluint yourself and compare.
>Which tells me nothing. The code was donated to Apache by DP, the person
>who checked those 2 files I believe had signed an agreement with DP
>handing over the IP so what exactly is the issue here?
Hi,
> You can check fluint yourself and compare.
Which tells me nothing. The code was donated to Apache by DP, the person who
checked those 2 files I believe had signed an agreement with DP handing over
the IP so what exactly is the issue here? Adobe (if they could be bothered)
would happy don
On 3/30/14 10:20 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> I still don't know if we have the header right for:
>>
>> ./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestCaseReport.as
>> ./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestSuiteReport.as
>
>So:
>a) How can we determine what is corr
HI,
> I still don't know if we have the header right for:
>
> ./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestCaseReport.as
> ./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestSuiteReport.as
So:
a) How can we determine what is correct for these files?
b) Do you think this a blocker for t
23 matches
Mail list logo
