On 3/14/17, 11:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate
>>the
>> CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a
>> ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we
>> generate f
Hi,
> In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the
> CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a
> ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we
> generate from CreateJS source. The Adobe legal team determined tha
Hi,
> In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the
> CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a
> ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we
> generate from CreateJS source. The Adobe legal team determined tha
Justin's fix for CreateJS typedefs on Unix reminded me...
In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the
CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a
ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we
generate from CreateJ
On 11/1/16, 5:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We still don’t have a reply from OpenFL or FlatUI. At this point given
>it's been 3-4 weeks I don’t think we’ll get a reply.
I'm on the fence about how much to bug them about this. I'd much rather
we just not do anything. I don't see any re
Hi,
We still don’t have a reply from OpenFL or FlatUI. At this point given it's
been 3-4 weeks I don’t think we’ll get a reply.
Thanks,
Justin
On 10/21/16, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we
>> aren't always that responsive to new issues ourselves.
>
>For FlatUI I would say there’s not much activity so we’re unlikely to get
>a response.
>
>> Still trying to
Hi,
> Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we
> aren't always that responsive to new issues ourselves.
For FlatUI I would say there’s not much activity so we’re unlikely to get a
response.
> Still trying to get a response from my legal department. My employment
On 10/21/16, 5:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I'd give them more than a week to respond.
>
>Another week has passed and no response.
Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we
aren't always that responsive to new issues ourselves.
>
>> I have not contacte
Hi,
> I'd give them more than a week to respond.
Another week has passed and no response.
> I have not contacted CreateJS, but have started the process of getting
> approved by Adobe folks to contact them.
Any progress? Given the software is already under an Apache license and
everyone has si
On 10/13/16, 11:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So I contacted both parties with pull requests a week ago and have
>received no reply.
>
>For FlatUI that's not so surprising as there was no reply to another
>licensing question asked by Alex way back in March and there very little
>activit
Hi,
So I contacted both parties with pull requests a week ago and have received no
reply.
For FlatUI that's not so surprising as there was no reply to another licensing
question asked by Alex way back in March and there very little activity on the
project. The pull request contains a LICENSE f
On 10/6/16, 9:49 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> IMO, you have the option of not contacting them and not adding the
>> headers.
>
>If we don’t contact them then we need to add the headers again as stated
>on legal discuss.
>
>> I think more Flex PMC members would prefer that we simply don
At this point we are going around in circles. Justin, if you can simply
send a PR with a short explanation of why this is important to you, maybe
they will just merge the PR.
Let's not try to game out all the possibilities beforehand.
Thanks,
Om
On Oct 6, 2016 9:49 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
Hi,
> IMO, you have the option of not contacting them and not adding the
> headers.
If we don’t contact them then we need to add the headers again as stated on
legal discuss.
> I think more Flex PMC members would prefer that we simply don't do
> anything about missing headers
Several PMC memb
On 10/6/16, 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is
>clear on the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s
>IMO very likely that I will get no response and that means as per the
>discussion on legal discuss w
On Oct 6, 2016 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is
clear on the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s IMO
very likely that I will get no response and that means as per the
discussion on legal discuss
Hi,
My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is clear on
the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s IMO very likely
that I will get no response and that means as per the discussion on legal
discuss we need to add the headers. The ONLY case where we w
t; Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:58:32
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
>
> I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s
> less confrontational. I see no reason to do so as “an official represen
: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:58:32
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s
less confrontational. I see no reason to do so as “an official representative
of the PMC”. I see no benefit in do
I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s
less confrontational. I see no reason to do so as “an official representative
of the PMC”. I see no benefit in doing so.
On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Are other PMC members ok with approaching the up
Hi,
Anyone else have anything to add before I start working on this?
Thanks,
Justin
IMHO if their project is licensed and their individual files are not licensed
it's a non-issue at least as that is concerned.
If what was said was true about just using a snippet and I'm understanding this
thread correctly, then let's give them a attribution / reference back to the
source and c
+1 to let Justin proceed as he suggested.
Chris
Von: Alex Harui
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 09:21:22
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 10/3/16, 3:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
&
On 10/3/16, 3:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> But if you are going to do something, it should be what is recommended
>
>I am doing what is recommend by policy and consensus on legal discuss.
Roy says we can distribute the work if there are missing headers so there
must not be a policy
Hi,
> But if you are going to do something, it should be what is recommended
I am doing what is recommend by policy and consensus on legal discuss.
> Did you contact the upstreams?
As I have stated I will yes and I will be doing that with my Flex PMC hat on.
Thanks,
Justin
On 10/3/16, 3:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> There are lots of non-ideal things in software that we don't have to
>>invest time on.
>
>If you just let me JFDI the only investment would be my time and this
>would of be sorted by now.
But if you are going to do something, it should be
Hi,
> There are lots of non-ideal things in software that we don't have to invest
> time on.
If you just let me JFDI the only investment would be my time and this would of
be sorted by now.
> If the upstreams do not respond then we can
> consider what to do in our repo next.
This is allrea
On 10/3/16, 2:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the
>> OpenFL community?
>
>There will be commits to our repo.
>
>> Roy said that there is no obligation.
>
>He also said this isn't an ideal way to operate in the same email
Hi,
> Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the
> OpenFL community?
There will be commits to our repo.
> Roy said that there is no obligation.
He also said this isn't an ideal way to operate in the same email [1] He also
stated adding an Apache header to a 3rd part
On 10/3/16, 9:56 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Please ... what is the problem here? I really don't get it.
>
>
>Justin found stuff that we could live with and have a slight risk or we
>change things and don't have that slight risk. Now you might think that
>it's not worth fixing ... fine. But a
18:42:18
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third
>> party project until they are satisfied,
On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third
>> party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think
>> you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the ASF or
>> the Apache Flex
Hi,
> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third
> party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think
> you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the ASF or
> the Apache Flex PMC.
Fix header means correct the issue with the heade
On 10/2/16, 6:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The discussion on legal-discuss has died down [1] and this as I see it
>the consensus:
>1. Notify upstream and ask them to fix their issue.
>2. Only parts of the license that relate to what is actually bundled
>needs to be included.
>3. When m
Hi,
The discussion on legal-discuss has died down [1] and this as I see it the
consensus:
1. Notify upstream and ask them to fix their issue.
2. Only parts of the license that relate to what is actually bundled needs to
be included.
3. When missing retrospectively adding headers and copyright fo
On 9/20/16, 11:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I will ask on legal discuss whether he was addressing this particular
>> scenario or any third-party with documentation issues.
>
>OK.
>
>> Maybe I wasn't clear, but my thought was that if you subset a license,
>>you
>> should copy the rele
Hi,
As you’ve raised it on legal discuss I wait until the discussion has finished
there before making any changes.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> I will ask on legal discuss whether he was addressing this particular
> scenario or any third-party with documentation issues.
OK.
> Maybe I wasn't clear, but my thought was that if you subset a license, you
> should copy the relevant bits into your license instead of creating a new
> fil
On 9/20/16, 4:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> Remember that a senior Apache member recommended filing an
>> upstream issue in this email [5].
>
>That refers to a missing NOTICE file which is a different issue, how
>notice files are handled is ASF policy and 3rd parties don’t need to
>follow
Hi,
> Matrix.as [4] currently has the following added by me:
>
> // Implementation derived fromL
> // https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/openfl/geom/Matrix.hx
> // available under MIT License.
>
> I added this after the release.
Which is OKish but we are not complying with it’s M
IMO, there are 3 categories of inclusion:
1) Bundling an entire release artifact.
2) Bundling an entire file from a release artifact where the top-level
license applies to that file.
2a) and then modifying that file
3) Copying portions of an existing work into an ASF-owned fie.
Then there is a di
On 9/20/16, 3:34 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>I'm no lawyer, but even if you only copy+paste an If statement that's
>actually a derivate work ... at least that's the way I understood it ...
>please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is different.
Let's
ork ... at least that's the way I understood it ...
> please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: Harbs
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. September 2016 10:18:34
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS lic
016 10:18:34
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
For that matter, we did not even consume entire functions. The only thing I
took from there was the algorithms of some of the methods.
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> AIUI, parts of OpenFL code w
Hi,
> For that matter, we did not even consume entire functions. The only thing I
> took from there was the algorithms of some of the methods.
Which is enough, converting an algorithm from one language to another doesn’t
change the original copyright. Just reading someones other source code (ra
For that matter, we did not even consume entire functions. The only thing I
took from there was the algorithms of some of the methods.
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> AIUI, parts of OpenFL code was used for portions of Matrix.as. We are not
> consuming their entire release art
Hi,
> Are you proposing to get the OpenFL community to accept headers on their
> source
> files by submitting a pull request on their repos and then replicating
> that header under the ASF header in Matrix.as?
No I was going to add a header to make it clear that the code wasn’t originally
Apac
I'm not quite sure I understand what steps you are planning to execute.
Inline are my questions:
On 9/19/16, 4:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>- Missing text of MIT license for OpenFL. Fix add header to OpenFL and
>add pointer to license text in LICENSE file.
AIUI, parts of OpenFL code wa
Hi,
As requested here’s an email with current outstanding issues. They are
mentioned in the vote emails [1][2] but also previously in [3] and [4] and (the
header issue) during the 0.6 release.
- Missing text of MIT license for OpenFL. Fix add header to OpenFL and add
pointer to license text in
50 matches
Mail list logo
