On 6/15/15, 6:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Sorry, it is me again. I think the link you provided did not point to
>>the
>> head. It appears to be MIT license now.
>
>If it is actually MIT just add it as MIT, although it’s a little odd the
>license in the header is different to the t
Hi,
> Sorry, it is me again. I think the link you provided did not point to the
> head. It appears to be MIT license now.
If it is actually MIT just add it as MIT, although it’s a little odd the
license in the header is different to the top level licence.
I found it via a quick swf dump and
Sorry, it is me again. I think the link you provided did not point to the
head. It appears to be MIT license now. Still, I will add it to the list.
[1]
https://code.google.com/p/ascompress/source/browse/trunk/src/com/probertson
/utils/GZIPEncoder.as
On 6/15/15, 5:15 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
On 6/15/15, 5:02 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>On 6/15/15, 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> I am proposing to ship it as is. Do you see anything that must change
>>> before shipping?
>>
>>Yes I’d vote -1 on a RC because of the MPL license issue if it is
>>released as is. See [1]
On 6/15/15, 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I am proposing to ship it as is. Do you see anything that must change
>> before shipping?
>
>Yes I’d vote -1 on a RC because of the MPL license issue if it is
>released as is. See [1]
>
>It’s not hard to fix the other stuff so given we have
Hi,
> I am proposing to ship it as is. Do you see anything that must change
> before shipping?
Yes I’d vote -1 on a RC because of the MPL license issue if it is released as
is. See [1]
It’s not hard to fix the other stuff so given we have a chance to do so why not
do it?
Thanks,
Justin
1. h
I am proposing to ship it as is. Do you see anything that must change
before shipping?
On 6/15/15, 3:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> OK, I have added a binary license (in a binary_license folder) and
>>updated
>> the packaging. Please review. Once we settle on this it will be time
>>t
Hi,
> OK, I have added a binary license (in a binary_license folder) and updated
> the packaging. Please review. Once we settle on this it will be time to
> cut the RC.
From a very quick look (so I may of missed something):
- as3httpclientlib seems to be MIT not BSD [1]. At worse this a documen
OK, I have added a binary license (in a binary_license folder) and updated
the packaging. Please review. Once we settle on this it will be time to
cut the RC.
-Alex
On 6/12/15, 11:29 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like a convoluted way to do this.
>>
>> I think we are overthinking th
The way I see most groups doing this is have the release be a ZIP file with
the license and release notes. We shouldn't make it harder than that.
Nobody will open a hex editor to view a read me. The ext info in the
filesystem is generally limited to 256 characters (or 512 in newer os's)
including
>
> Sounds like a convoluted way to do this.
>
> I think we are overthinking this.
Ya think?
This is what happens when you let loose the lawyers ;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
On 6/12/15, 10:38 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Jun 12, 2015 9:41 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>>
>> I grabbed the EXE off the CI server. The Hex Editor I have can’t find
>>the
>> LICENSE by examining the EXE file. My understanding from Roy was that’s
>> how most folks are going to look, s
On Jun 12, 2015 9:41 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
> I grabbed the EXE off the CI server. The Hex Editor I have can’t find the
> LICENSE by examining the EXE file. My understanding from Roy was that’s
> how most folks are going to look, so I’m not sure if this approach is
> going to work. It might
I grabbed the EXE off the CI server. The Hex Editor I have can’t find the
LICENSE by examining the EXE file. My understanding from Roy was that’s
how most folks are going to look, so I’m not sure if this approach is
going to work. It might be that the LICENSE is compressed and thus not
discovera
Hi,
The part on binary redistributions applies and is worth a read [1].
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
Hi,
> Okay, I just pushed a change the build script that includes the LICENSE and
> NOTICE files along with the installation exe/dmg. These files would end up
> in the installation directory. I think this is sufficient, right?
Partly. The LICENSE and NOTICE files need to reflect the contents of
Okay, I just pushed a change the build script that includes the LICENSE and
NOTICE files along with the installation exe/dmg. These files would end up
in the installation directory. I think this is sufficient, right?
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/12/
On 6/12/15, 4:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We already distribute the binaries here [1], wouldn’t the simple answer
>be to package those up in an archive and include the required NOTICE and
>LICENSE files just as we do with the source?
Do you mean, instead of an EXE and DMG, it would b
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We already distribute the binaries here [1], wouldn’t the simple answer be
> to package those up in an archive and include the required NOTICE and
> LICENSE files just as we do with the source? Generally the LICENSE and
> NOTICE file
Hi,
We already distribute the binaries here [1], wouldn’t the simple answer be to
package those up in an archive and include the required NOTICE and LICENSE
files just as we do with the source? Generally the LICENSE and NOTICE files are
also placed in the dist directory outside of the binary /
Excerpt from Roy on legal-discuss:
There isn't any one way to do it,
but most groups follow the habits of their community
(e.g., java folks add them to the manifest so they
get loaded on top of a jar, EXE folks use a static array
or build tool to place them at the top of bottom of t
OK, can folks start replacing “Disclaimer” in the localized .properties
files? Or tell me what it is in this thread and I’ll change it later.
I’m still working out of the develop branch.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 6/12/15, 6:28 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>>
>> we’ll get an answer by then otherwise I thi
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> The problem is that the DMG and EXE files for the Installer *are* the
> binary release. EXE and DMG files are not archives so you can’t just pack
> L & N into them. Packing up L & N into the .air file that becomes EXE or
> DMG doesn’t make
>
> we’ll get an answer by then otherwise I think I’ll just rename the
> “Disclaimer” link button to “Legal Stuff” and add the L & N to the web
> page it points to.
>
That absolutely makes the most sense of anything I've read on the thread.
+ 1
Just do it ;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
On 6/12/15, 12:18 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>>
>> Normally you would ship the binary and LICENSE and NOTICE file along
>>with
>the executable all in a archive.
>
>I vote for avoiding a binary release altogether. It is not required for
>a
>valid Apache release.
The problem is that the D
On Jun 12, 2015 12:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Can you point me to the instructions on how to package LICENSE in an EXE
> > and/or DMG file?
>
> Not sure why you are asking. But you can add assets to an AIR app that
get packaged into the apps and one of those assets could be a LICE
Hi,
> Can you point me to the instructions on how to package LICENSE in an EXE
> and/or DMG file?
Not sure why you are asking. But you can add assets to an AIR app that get
packaged into the apps and one of those assets could be a LICENSE and NOTICE
file. The issue here is that it’s not very di
On 6/11/15, 4:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> But the binary in this case is an EXE or DMG. It isn’t a collection of
>> files one of which could be a LICENSE file. I’ll ask on legal-discuss.
>
>Just like the Flex SDK binary convenience release which has a different
>LICENSE/NOTICE for
Hi,
> But the binary in this case is an EXE or DMG. It isn’t a collection of
> files one of which could be a LICENSE file. I’ll ask on legal-discuss.
Just like the Flex SDK binary convenience release which has a different
LICENSE/NOTICE for. Given the solution is straight forward i.e. add the
On 6/11/15, 3:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> True in most cases where the convenience binary is compiled libraries,
>>but
>> how does that apply to an application like the Installer? We aren’t
>> bundling as much as linking.
>
>I’d say the guiding principle applies [1], basically if i
Hi,
> True in most cases where the convenience binary is compiled libraries, but
> how does that apply to an application like the Installer? We aren’t
> bundling as much as linking.
I’d say the guiding principle applies [1], basically if it’s included the
binary then we need to add it to the bi
On 6/11/15, 3:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The SSL and as3httpdclient library is downloaded. Both are BSD
>>licensed.
>
>So the LICENSE for the binary (which is what most people use) would need
>to change and have those added.
True in most cases where the convenience binary is comp
Hi,
> The SSL and as3httpdclient library is downloaded. Both are BSD licensed.
So the LICENSE for the binary (which is what most people use) would need to
change and have those added.
Thanks,
Justin
The SSL and as3httpdclient library is downloaded. Both are BSD licensed.
-Nick
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve not has a chance to look but has the LICENSE been updated based on
> the added SSL library? Is that bundled or just downloaded?
>
> Thanks,
> Just
Hi,
I’ve not has a chance to look but has the LICENSE been updated based on the
added SSL library? Is that bundled or just downloaded?
Thanks,
Justin
On 6/10/15, 10:23 PM, "piotrz" wrote:
>Alex,
>
>I've reviewed updated docs and everything seems to be in place.
>One question - shouldn't we have contributor list also in the installer?
Feel free to add one. I’m waiting a couple of more days to see anyone is
opposed to me moving the Installer
Alex,
I've reviewed updated docs and everything seems to be in place.
One question - shouldn't we have contributor list also in the installer?
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-
I made some updates to NOTICE, README, and RELEASE_NOTES. Please review
these and related documents. If I don’t hear not to, I’ll cut an official
RC later this week.
-Alex
On 6/3/15, 12:43 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/3/
Alex,
You are right I had a bit older version. Now seems to be ok. Sorry about
that. :)
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache-Flex-Installer-3-2-tp47369p47442.html
Sent
On 6/4/15, 9:38 AM, "piotrz" wrote:
>Installer is working fine. I've tried it on two PCs with Windows 7 64bit.
>
>Only one findings is some UI problem [1] which looks like that.
>
>[1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/1kiM55NN5BeAoJyF-Obszar.png
Piotr, when did you grab the nightly build? That
Installer is working fine. I've tried it on two PCs with Windows 7 64bit.
Only one findings is some UI problem [1] which looks like that.
[1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/1kiM55NN5BeAoJyF-Obszar.png
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
ht
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/15, 12:32 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
> >>You will have to uninstall Installer 3.1 (which on Mac means not only
> >> moving to the trash but emptying the trash) before running the exe or
> >>dmg
> >> file.
> >>
> >
> >I hope
On 6/3/15, 12:32 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>>You will have to uninstall Installer 3.1 (which on Mac means not only
>> moving to the trash but emptying the trash) before running the exe or
>>dmg
>> file.
>>
>
>I hope that is only for testing the release candidate? For the end users,
>the
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Per [1] I think we can enter the testing phase for the Installer. If
> anybody has a last-minute feature they want to get in, I’m willing to back
> up to the Last Call phase.
>
> There is already a release branch, but I think so much w
44 matches
Mail list logo
