We did not pursue that approach because Apache supposedly only distributes
source code with open licenses.  Even if there was such an agreement, the
binary packages still could not contain Adobe stuff because a binary
package can only contain the compiled results of a source package.

I may still set up a simple "business" to distribute the same package as
Adobe 4.6 but a license acceptance will still be required which AFAIK
still poses a problem for Maven.

Maybe we should add some license handling to Maven itself?

-Alex

On 10/29/13 12:53 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Not sure if it has been already asked but can't Apache  / Apache Flex
>sign a
>Distribution agreement ?
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 17:57
>À : dev@flex.apache.org
>Objet : Re: License Stuff
>
>
>
>On 10/29/13 7:16 AM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de"
><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>>Hi Guys,
>>
>>I am currently talking to Brian Fox from Sonatype. He told me that
>>Sonatype signed a Distribution Agreement with Adobe had been signed in
>>2008, but this has expired 2009, but it seems they are willing to
>>re-sign such an Agreement.
>>
>>For which parts would we Need an Agreement from Adobe? As far as I know
>>this would be the Flach Playerglobal and for Air the Airglobal and
>>related SWCs/RSLs is there anything else? Can a Distribution Agreement
>>be signed for all of the missing parts?
>I believe you need the entire AIR SDK.  Well, maybe not the runtimes, but
>the packagers if you are going to support mobile output.
>
>>
>>If we manage to sort this out, I guess There should be nothing else
>>preventing us from Publishing Flex SDKs without having to implement any
>>hacks. I guess this would help a lot of Flex users quite a lot.
>In my last conversation with Adobe Legal, they still want folks to accept
>the license agreement once per company.  The distribution agreement only
>gives you the right to distribute, but folks still need to be aware that
>not
>every file is Apache-licensed.
>
>-Alex
>

Reply via email to