On 6/17/14 4:49 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>Okay, I will see if I can take some time off to do this. If yes, do I
>have
>permission to use your slides from your past presentations?
Absolutely.
Okay, I will see if I can take some time off to do this. If yes, do I have
permission to use your slides from your past presentations?
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I think you should represent FlexJS for us. If you can't I'll try to find
> out if I can find
I think you should represent FlexJS for us. If you can't I'll try to find
out if I can find the funds to do it.
On 6/17/14 3:59 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>The HTML5 dev conf is coming up in October in SF. The call for session
>speakers went out today [1]
>
>Last year, I attended a sessi
On 6/17/14 4:10 PM, "DarkStone" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>OK I got it, SWFObject location will be assigned to GitHub since Flex SDK
>4.12.2
>
>I hope 4.12.2 won't have that Callout bug found in 4.13.0 Nightly Build :
>)
It shouldn't. I just fixed that issue.
-Alex
Hi Alex,
OK I got it, SWFObject location will be assigned to GitHub since Flex SDK 4.12.2
I hope 4.12.2 won't have that Callout bug found in 4.13.0 Nightly Build : )
DarkStone
2014-06-18
At 2014-06-18 07:00:54, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Hi Darkstone,
>
>That's great that you might finish translati
Hi Darkstone,
That's great that you might finish translations soon.
The SWFObject location is tied to the SDK release, not the Installer.
Only the nightly builds know to look at GitHub. I am trying to prepare an
official release with that change ASAP. I think we are going to call that
release 4
The HTML5 dev conf is coming up in October in SF. The call for session
speakers went out today [1]
Last year, I attended a session on cross-compiling to JavaScript that
included Coffescript, Typescript, etc. I think introducing FlexJS to that
audience would be a great idea.
Alex, Peter, anyone
Hi Alex,
I have finished 5 out of 6 translation files, I think I might finish all in
this week.
My Chinese fellows, they all come to ask me why they can't finish the
installation of the Flex SDK, so I need to ask, in the official release of Flex
SDK Installer 3.1, will it download SWFObject fr
On 6/17/14 2:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to
>> accept that these are Google fonts?
>No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the
>copyright is not exactly obvious or convenient.
Wow! So y
On 6/17/14 2:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on)
>>> before being implemented in 2 releases.
>> I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it
>> doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'
Justin, did you see my earlier email?
Thanks,
Om
On Jun 17, 2014 2:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to
> > accept that these are Google fonts?
> No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the
>
Hi,
>> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on)
>> before being implemented in 2 releases.
> I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it
> doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'm just offering it up as
> a convenience.
It has alr
Hi,
Sorry Peter again didn't mean to single you out, just trying to illustrate a
point.
> I think tools which make it easier to validate will encourage people to
> participate more.
Again I agree here, if it gets people looking at released and understanding the
process that great. But PMC bindi
Hi,
> The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to
> accept that these are Google fonts?
No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the copyright
is not exactly obvious or convenient.
> Add that to what file according to what quote from the LICE
I ran the script twice; the first to verify that it worked and on the
second run, read every word that it produced. Some of it I didn't know the
rightness or wrongness of the statements, so that, to me, makes my vote
not quite as valid. But then I would imagine that most people who vote are
not 100
Excellent. I'm gearing up for a 4.12.2 release and will be spending this
week catching up on SDK JIRA issues. I'll review it in a day or so unless
someone beats me to it.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 6/17/14 4:59 AM, "João Fernandes"
wrote:
>Hi, I just attached patches to bugs
>https://issues.apache.org/
On 6/17/14 10:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
>> reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the
>>output
>> of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
>> determination o
On 6/17/14 10:10 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font.
>Sorry I don't know and hard to tell where it come from as there no other
>info in that directory. May be in the fonts metadata I guess? IMO All the
>more reason for stating it somewhere.
Th
Hi,
> I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
> reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output
> of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
> determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers
The Google Open Sans font issue was discussed during the first release of
the Installer and it was cleared by Bertrand. It went through the IPMC
without any objections, as well. I think we are in the clear.
Here are the relevant emails [1]
Thanks,
Om
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbo
Hi,
> What part of the AL says that a copyright must be included/acknowledged
Also under US (and many other places) you need to acknowledge copyright and/or
get the owner permission to do so - in this case the Apache license give us
permission to use the fonts. An Apache licence doesn't remove
Hi,
> AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font.
Sorry I don't know and hard to tell where it come from as there no other info
in that directory. May be in the fonts metadata I guess? IMO All the more
reason for stating it somewhere.
> Specifically, what changes do you propose to the re
I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output
of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers
cannot be inf
AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font. If you have evidence
to the contrary please supply that evidence, otherwise, let's proceed as
if it is the Google font under AL.
Specifically, what changes do you propose to the release package? What
part of the AL says that a copyright must be
There no issue with bundling if you abide by the terms of the license for
the Apache license that quite easy.
Please read terms of Apache license both license template and header
containing copyright must be included.
If you bundled Apache made software no changes are required, but for other
copyright owners they need to be acknowledged.
As the font can't have a header as such makes sense to put a couple
I have verified to my satisfaction that is Google's Open Sans and covered
by AL, so would you agree no need to change LICENSE whether bundled or not?
Regarding NOTICE, it is my understanding from the document you linked to
that AL dependencies do not require changes to NOTICE.
The issue with Flex
If it is Adobe's font it's covered by this license.
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/pdfs/OpenFontLicense.pdf
If not bundled then no need to add to LICENSE (or NOTICE) but if bundled
and Apache is not owner we need to state that. I'm not even 100% sure the
files are from Google, didn't Adobe also release an open source font of
similar name?
The fact that we don't own it ie same issue we had with flex unit
I'm confused. What should we add to the LICENSE given the font is under
AL?
My script helped me notice that Open Sans is in the source package and I
wondered about the "take" policy and whether it should be bundled or not,
but I don't see how that affects LICENSE.
-Alex
On 6/17/14 3:00 AM, "Jus
Hi, I just attached patches to bugs
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23915 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34375 which are quick fixes.
--
João Fernandes
Hi,
-1 (binding)
LICENCE is missing mention of the OpenSans font that is included in the source
package. [1] [2]
While this is "minor", and I know we've missed this in previous releases, is it
important that we get the LICENSE file corrrect.
Justin
PS I found this by manually running rat and
Well that's always promising.
-Original Message-
From: flex.muste...@gmail.com [mailto:flex.muste...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:13 AM
To: comm...@flex.apache.org; bigosma...@gmail.com
Subject: flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed!
flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed:
>
> 100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them
> legal releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the board) to greater
> risk.
>
Yeah, this has to stop. We cannot avoid doing 'useful and good things'
simply because some bored lawyer hypothesised there might be an
Hi,
> Link to the discussion, please?
There also the community building and social aspects of a release [1] (from the
same thread), ie "Community over code".
Thanks,
Justin
1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cce4928b9-22d5-456c-817c-85fae66ac...@jagun
Hi,
> It seems to me that a script provides consistency,
> completeness and ease of use, allowing more people to participate in the
> testing and voting process.
100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them legal
releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the boar
On 17/06/14 10:05, Erik de Bruin wrote:
And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into
the terminal in order to comply? Is an ant script a script? Why are scripts
considered "bad"? It seems to me that a script provides consistency,
completeness and ease of use, allowi
HI,
> Link to the discussion, please?
Been several - they are quite long - the 3rd one is probably the most relevant.
1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cCAAS6=7jTVyaDhwepAqob-=83dxj-uams9gyg5j5xdhyybva...@mail.gmail.com%3e
2.http://mail-archives.apache.o
>
> this is against Apache policy - releases must be manually checked
That seems oddly backwards for an organisation that exists to create,
support and evangelise bit collections that automate things...
And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into
the terminal in o
On Jun 17, 2014 12:51 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a
> > release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature
> > files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
> > 1) create an empty folder,
> > 2) download
Hi,
> There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a
> release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature
> files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
> 1) create an empty folder,
> 2) download into that folder this file:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist
Thank you! For staying on top of it :-)
Om
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Yes!
>
> Thanks, all.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, wrote:
>
>> flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed:
>>
>> http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/954/
Yes!
Thanks, all.
EdB
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, wrote:
> flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed:
>
> http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/954/
>
> Changes for Build #943
>
> Changes for Build #944
>
> Changes for Build #945
>
> Changes for Build #946
> [nick] Reve
This is the discuss thread.
The main goal of this release is to fix some launch config issues on
Windows.
The correct URL of the approval script is:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/ApproveFlexJS.
xml
Thanks,
-Alex
Hi,
This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of Apache FlexJS.
The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/
Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on
approving a release?", at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/
Hi,
This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of the FalconJX (and Falcon)
compilers. I am not proposing a separate Falcon-only release package at
this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as
upstream packages for the FlexJS release.
The release candidate can be found
This is the discussion thread.
48 matches
Mail list logo
