On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your answer. If the
>>> answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Harbs wrote:
> Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
> License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any
> question about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that
> contributed even if they don’
On 28 November 2015 at 16:26, wrote:
> Repository: apache-website-template
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master b140c230c -> 9e881e247
>
>
> Add LICENSE and NOTICE files
>
> Properly document LICENSE for each component
> included on this website, including necessary
> required attribution no
Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any question
about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that contributed even
if they don’t understand licenses (not very likely) will care. I
The code was originally on Google Code and has 26 people listed there.[1]
[1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/people/list
On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> 2) AS3Commons
>
> Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the
> contributors has already b
Alex
The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is
correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be applied
or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means or what
granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it o
