On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a >> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson >>is >> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible. > >And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release >candidate. Unless anyone has any other objections? Squiggly has been legally cleared for take-off! Now that we know it gets to fly solo, I have one concern, then some stuff to consider: The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and http://hunspell.sourceforge.net. The dictionaries at open office.org and the dictionaries linked to at Hunspell's site seem to be LPGL versions for English. How about we tweak the README by replacing: You can obtain dictionary files from: http://extensions.openoffice.org http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"; With: You can obtain en_US and en_CA dictionaries under a BSD/MIT-like license from: http://wordlist.aspell.net/dicts/ You can obtain other dictionary files from: http://wordlist.aspell.net/other-dicts/ http://extensions.openoffice.org http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"; But note that many of these dictionaries are under LPGL licenses. Then if we do another RC, I'm wondering: 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package? I would have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean results. I was expecting a separate zip in a doc folder on dist like we do in the SDK. After all, it isn't really source? 2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a binaries folder on dist? 3) Could the README end with the same "thank you" we have in the SDK's README? Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! The Apache Flex Project <http://flex.apache.org> Other than that, I'm good to go. LICENSE and NOTICE and RELEASE_NOTES look good and the build completed. -Alex
