This doesn't look as clear as it could be. The author says "feel free to adapt and modify". It is ambiguous as to whether this means "change the license".
I posted on the Github post asking Emil if he will ask for a more explicit "yes" to a relicense. If that doesn't work, we can ask the ASF VP Legal if he considers the permission to "adapt and modify" to be sufficient to count as permission to relicense. Upayavira (who has just signed on to this list) On 2017-10-02 06:41, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: > The permission he received was sufficient to relicense it. > > Thanks, > Harbs > > > On Oct 2, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> If you have an issue please be very, very clear in your next email > >> precisely what you have issue with. Be meticulous. Filenames, etc. > > > > The off list conversion can be found here [1]. You can see that while > > permission to relicense was asked for it was not explicitly given only > > permission to modify and adapt the code from AMF99 to AMF3. The original > > source license hasnât changed. > > > > The file in question was referenced in my original email [2] as was the > > file it was based on [3]. The original GPL code that it was based on can be > > found here [4] (youâll need to download it to view it). > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. https://github.com/emilkm/amfjs/issues/17 > > 2. > > https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/66cc5a3daae1ee9f02264e36cb90b197953c96a9/frameworks/projects/Network/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/net/remoting/amf/AMFBinaryData.as > > 3. https://github.com/emilkm/amfjs/blob/master/amf.js > > 4. https://code.google.com/archive/p/r-amf/source/default/source > >
