There's a key question to be answered on legal-discuss, which is whether we are in violation of the guidelines by releasing a package that doesn't bundle or download Category X and just telling folks where to get the Category X data. Henri said Yes, Greg implied no (with the runtime-dependency answer).
If the answer is no, then my understanding is that we cannot vote on a separate Squiggly release package. We would have to bundle the source with the SDK and vote on a new SDK release. -Alex On 8/30/14 9:42 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >Given legal advice currently is: >1. If I cannot run Apache Flex without acquiring that (L)GPL data, then >it violates the guidelines. >2. making it an optional feature is a great and perfectly acceptable >solution >3. Flex's ActionScript spellchecker would not include the LGPL/GPL >dictionaries and would instead only provide instructions on how to obtain >them > >And that the current RC complies with 1 and 3 and 2 is acceptable (and >what you suggested). What if anything needs to be change in the RC to >make it comply? > >As far as I can see nothing further is required - other than perhaps add >a note saying so the README (just to make it clear), and then add it as >as optional download in the installer at some later date. > >Also can other PMC members please check the RC1 for any other issues. > >Thanks, >Justin > >
