I don't have an answer to your question. However, considering that there is disagreement on who should have copyright, and the original license is one that we can use, I don't see a risk in keeping their header. We can use the code either way.
- Josh On Sep 15, 2016 4:40 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 9/15/16, 4:17 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >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? > > Not sure. If we give them copyright and we shouldn't have, can we take it > back? > > In the long term, I think if it isn't too hard to get the CreateJS > community to take over the externs, then we don't have to deal with > maintaining the patch files that generate the externs. It is pretty > fragile stuff. If CreateJS adds new APIs to both their library and the > externs at the same time, we won't have to deal with the patch process not > working. Same is true for any other third-party library. If FlexJS is > successful, every third-party JS framework will want to have externs for > FlexJS and it will be more efficient for both communities of the > third-party community controls their externs. That we we aren't bothered > with handling patches from them, etc. > > -Alex > >
