On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is the > >best way to move forward? > > > >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for us, > >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe? > When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe > Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA > (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense I > got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are under > open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do that. > If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe > Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without > explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all of > them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok. > > I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI action. Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others? > > > >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven, so > >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing. > It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If I > had, I probably wouldn't have a blog. > > > Fair enough :-) Thanks, Om > -Alex > >
