I'm not sure I agree that it has to be "entire". Aren't you going to cut an RC4? All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or LICENSE something like:
Some source files in the FlexUnit4UIListener and FlexUnit4CIListener are copyright Adobe Systems Inc. and licensed under BSD. We are not going in circles about putting the full license back in LICENSE. I understand I'm being picky, but I've seen the incubator be picky about LICENSE and NOTICE so I think it is important. Think of it this way: since you are now on the Incubator PMC, would you let podlings release and/or graduate with just practicing the "intent" of the notice file policies? And would the hard-liners like sebb agree? They just took Cordova to task for "intent" instead of "letter" of the release process. And there recently was that other long thread about LICENSE and NOTICE. FWIW, the same reason you want to get past this release is the same reason I wanted to get past the Installer 3.0 release. I still haven't closed that vote mainly because we aren't going to announce it until 4.12.1, but partially because I keep hoping you'll find time to figure out the steps to reproduce that one issue, and/or decide maybe it isn't that important and change your vote in the official VOTE thread. Otherwise the results have to point to the DISCUSS thread or we'll announce the results with your -1 in it. If you don't want to spend any more time not the Installer let me know and I'll just close the vote as is. -Alex ________________________________________ From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:26 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3 HI, > We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire > BSD license). See where it says "add a pointer" in > https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html This would apply if we where bundling an entire MIT/BSD dependant project and not just a few files. All of the source code has the correct license header all of the 3rd party people are correctly referred to in the source NOTICE and LICENSE files, there may be one or two areas where it's a little unclear but we're certainly abiding with the intent if not the actual letter of the rules. Can we please stop going around in circles with this I would rather my time on this project was spent on something else more productive like actually release this so user can use it and fixing bugs. Thanks, Justin
