On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third >> party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think >> you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the ASF or >> the Apache Flex PMC. > >Fix header means correct the issue with the header and notify upstream. I >mentioned both in my email. Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the OpenFL community? > >I would be representing the Flex project with my Flex PMC hat on. Why >would there an issue with that? There’s consensus on what action is >required on legal discuss, or do you disagree with that? I think it would >encourage them to make the changes if I explain where and how their code >is being used. IMO, there is different value for different things. Whether there is a header in the OpenFL Matrix.hx file does not, AIUI, affect our ability to ship Apache Flex releases. A senior Apache member said we can use "trust" and "intent". I personally wish to do so here. Roy said that there is no obligation. I appreciate it when you find the big ticket items in our releases such as a Category X or B dependency, and you are probably be best at finding stuff like that, but once we are in the details of permissive licensing, I would prefer that Apache Flex not build a reputation as a stickler. I think we spend way too much time on the details within our community and do not wish to make other communities spend more time than the value it might return. Also, you will be the person agreeing to any CLA with the upstreams. The PMC and the ASF is cannot sign a CLA. If you want to say "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache projects and here's a patch that does that" I think that would be even more encouragement than just saying our one project wants them to change something, but still you are representing yourself and how important you think it is. BTW, I don't recall that there was any upstream header fixes needed for CreateJS. I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get permission to donate the externs files to them. > >> Add header to where? > >Any source files that originally came from them that has a missing header. AIUI, that is only their css/less files, and again, we did not start by copying their files. > >> I assume you are planning to contact design modo as well? > >Yes as I stated in my email. see a few lines below which you also >included in your reply. > >>> I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for >>>OpenFL >>> and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI. Feel free to contact them as an individual. I personally do not support your questioning of their ability to license their code as MIT. You could, in theory, write such a letter to providers of any code base imported by Apache. The set of CLAs from third-parties for patches accepted by Adobe before the donation to Apache is not public and making Adobe rummage through that and defend itself would not put the ASF or Apache Flex in good standing with Adobe, so I am personally uncomfortable with having myself associated with any challenge to DesignModo or any third-parties. Now if you want to contact them and say the exact same thing I suggest you say to OpenFL and your patch uses a DesignModo copyright therefore trusting that they have correctly handled ownership, again, because Apache Flex is not obligated to do that, I still don't want to be represented in this communication, but at least having them accept a DesignModo-copyrighted MIT header would be a relatively quick improvement to the ecosystem. If other PMC members do want to have the PMC back Justin's communication with the third-parties, please speak up. I'm only one person with one opinion. Thanks, -Alex
