Could we add another section just for the third party examples? > Apache has been conservative about looking like it is promoting for-profits so we have to be careful, but if nobody else objects I'm fine with it.
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:45 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Flex TourDeFlex 1.0 On 8/25/14 4:19 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/25/14 3:57 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >> AIUI, as long as we can build TDF by downloading third-party SWCs as >> >>part >> >> of the build process it doesn't even have to be compatibly-licensed. >> > >> > >> >That is, assuming that a 3rd party component developer has a freely >> >available download that we could use. It is not a very likely >>scenario. >> Maybe we need concrete examples. If your component isn't freely >> available, maybe the app that exhibits it should be in the showcase? >> >> >Do you mean 'should not'? I meant "should". If you won't disclose the source code, that app is a better fit for the showcase than the explorer with its source views. > > >> Or are you talking about components that aren't free? Good question if >> for-pay components are a good fit for Apache TDF. >> > >We need to support free and non-free component developers. Otherwise we >will never see enterprise components in the wild. That is one of the >reasons we don't have a good public showcase in spite of great apps being >built on top of Apache Flex. Apache has been conservative about looking like it is promoting for-profits so we have to be careful, but if nobody else objects I'm fine with it. > > >> >> And, if we get clearance from the Incubator to make changes to our >>version >> of TDF on our site, then we could add them to the site version but not >>the >> Apache version. >> >> >Please elaborate. I am not sure what the difference is. Well, we may not want explorer.xml in the git repo to list these third-party examples, but the one on the site (or compiled into the one on the site) could. > >Finally, why can't we just hotlink if the 3rd party folks are okay with >it? Can do that too, but then there is increased risk of failure of that external url stops working. -Alex
