Rc4 coming with one fix and change to NOTICE (hoping that legal-discuss
backs me up)
On 6/13/14 1:06 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Please vote to approve Apache Flex SDK Installer version 3.1 to be
>released.
>
>Issues addressed in this release:
>- Installer will report more information when installs
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
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
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,
> 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
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
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
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,
-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
+1 Binding
Tested on Windows 7 64-bit machine.
Source zip kit signature looks good "Good signature from "Alex Harui (CODE
SIGNING KEY) "
MD5 matches
Rat report looks good
I am able to build from the sources by following the instructions in the
README
Generated binary installed fine
I selected Flex
+1
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/installer/3.1/rc3/apache-flex-s
dk-installer-3.1.0-src.tar.gz
Java 1.6
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.7.5
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved license
Please vote to approve Apache Flex SDK Installer version 3.1 to be
released.
Issues addressed in this release:
- Installer will report more information when installs fail.
- Bugs fixed in ant_on_air required by latest nightly builds of FalconJX
and FlexJS
- Caching logic moved to the install scrip
24 matches
Mail list logo
