On 9/15/16, 2:30 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi Alex, > > >as far as I understood it, It's not the patch file that we are talking >about, its that the patch file (which should have an Apache license ... I >think) changes an existing file with other license, hereby modifying it >and creating a derivative work. Additionally it removes the original >license header. I'm no expert, but I think the patch file should be >Apache licensed, but the output needs to keep the original license as >most of these licenses require any derivative to maintain the license and >I think this is a derivative work. > > >But as I said, I'm no expert on licensing. I'm not an expert either. The goal of the patch file is to generate an externs file. Other folks who have created externs have licensed the externs differently from the library it represents. And after Google won the Android/Java case, it appears that it is the implementation, not the API that matters, and the externs has no remnants of the original implementation in it, so one could argue it is no longer a derivative. In another scenario, when I completely rewrote the MD5 algorithm, the Adobe IP attorneys said we owned the implementation and thus could control the licensing. But it is controversial, and I think it would be better to avoid confrontation and donate the resulting externs file to the CreateJS community. If we can all agree to do that and figure out the steps to do that, then we won't have to keep debating this issue, drag in more folks, etc. Instead we would save time if the CreateJS folks take over maintenance of these files, and we would introduce them to the power of FlexJS and maybe attract more committers. That seems like a better use of our time and energy, but I believe I am restricted from being the liaison to CreateJS. Any volunteers? Thanks -Alex
