On 11/1/12 2:50 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mention ./LICENSE file from the source release and naturally assume
> this is the source release license.
> Then I assume Apache source release should be generally Apache
> licensed. This is not necessarily true for a binary release which can
> contain compatibly licensed components.
>
Hi Alexei,
I think there may in fact be a problem with the LICENSE file and the
Open_Sans font.
However, I I am confused about what steps we are supposed to execute to
address your second concern. I'm not sure what you mean by "adding
BSD-like...".
There are two files in the source release that have a BSD license using the
Modified BSD template and substituting Adobe as the organization. Why isn't
what we did the correct way to handle this?
>>>> 2. Something like BSD license.
>>>>
>>>> The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can be
>>>> resolved by adding BSD-like licensed files during build.
>>>>
>>>> So the question is why do you use non-standard LICENSE for the source
>>>> release?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
