Apologies for the email formatting. My replies prefixed by "Alex:"
________________________________________ From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 4:50 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3 Hi, > Aren't you going to cut an RC4? No until the license issue is resolved, otherwise it just a waste of time.Looks like no committers have even tested any of the previous three RCs because of this issue. > All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or > LICENSE something like: If you're not even sure on what is required how can this be resolved? Can you please get a Mentor to make a ruling on this or have someone with more experience in crafting NOTICE and/or LICENSE files give their expert opinion. I can't see any other way of getting this released without endless release candidates. If you can't do then then I suggest we drop support for Flex Unit 1 and the UI runner and make a future release with these things in it once this matter is resolved. Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss. > but I've seen the incubator be picky about LICENSE and NOTICE so I think it > is important. Yes it is important. Can you please tell what about this you don't understand? ""For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded in each dependency source file." The whole point of this (and it's been a fairly recent shift in Apache policy I believe) it to make LICENSE and NOTICE files contain the minimum content required and not become a burden to downstream projects or users of the project. Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not including the full text of the MIT and BSD licenses in the LICENSE file. If you read "Bundling Permissively-Licences Dependanies" from [1] it states: "Bundling a dependency which is issued under one of the following licenses is straightforward, assuming that said license applies uniformly to all files within the dependency" This is not the case here we have a small number of files which have MIT and BSD in a large number of file which have Apache headers. Flex unit 1 is not a "dependancy" by any reasonable definition of the word. Alex: I still think the Adobe BSD code is a dependency. IIUC, Apache does not have a license to those files. Hence it is third-party. Yes, I supposed these are optional features we could drop, but IMO, the goal of this release should be at least parity. You are right that the "Bundling Permissively Licensed Dependencies" section does not cover how to handle our particular situation. So I will ask for a ruling. > And would the hard-liners like sebb agree? Not 100% sure but I think he probably would agree that what we have current is fine but that's up to him to say. He probably want the shorter link to licences form, but that's not a blocker. > 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. That is a unreleated issue, the issue with the installer release were mostly technical not NOTICE/LICENSE related. > I keep hoping you'll find time to figure out the steps to reproduce that one > issue As I stated before I believe it happens when the FLEX SDK have a different version of AIR to what air home points to. Why don't you try it? Alex: Because we normally ask those filing bugs to provide steps to reproduce. -Alex
