Wouldn't it be easier to leave the originally license header intact, even if it may not necessarily be required, than to try to convince another community to take ownership of the code?
- Josh On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >
