OK, but first, I want to settle this thing about pom.xml on Adobe download servers. I spent a considerable amount of time pursuing the pom.xml approach and I don't want to go back for another set of negotiations if I don't have to. -Alex
On 10/29/13 2:45 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >@Alex, @Chris, I'd like to be in the loop with the Brian Fox communication >please, if there is a way to sort out everything via Sonatype, it should >be >optimal and being in the loop would allow me to ask about technical things >hoping to dissipate the doubts about the feasibility I still have. > >Thanks, >-Fred > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] >Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 22:37 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : RE: License Stuff > >I can't see how 1 or more pom.xml on their server could help Alex, we >need >artifacts and classifiers along with the project descriptor, I mean trees >entire mavenized SDKs. did I miss or forgot something again :-) ? > >-Fred > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 >22:32 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff > >Adobe did not want to deal with registration or a way to avoid the license >dialog, but I'm pretty sure we got permission to put up pom.xml files on >the >current downloads server. > >On 10/29/13 2:29 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>IIRC Adobe didn't want to invest in a server just for that. >> >>-Fred >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre >>2013 22:20 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff >> >> >> >>On 10/29/13 2:14 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Also, I can retrieve it at the moment but when I read the specific Air >>>license terms, I understood it couldn't be distributed in piece but >>>only in only one full and original distribution. >>Yes, that's probably true, and the runtimes are part of the SDK. I >>don't think they make a distribution without the runtimes. >> >>Just to be sure, we once talked about Adobe putting pom.xml files on >>its downloads server. Have we decided that is insufficient and a >>distribution agreement is better? Either way, there is some sort of a >>license acceptance requirement unless we can get an exemption. >> >>-Alex >> >
