Justin,
To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on
legal-discuss and general@incubator is that we must put a simple pointer into
LICENSE. Something like:
"The following folders contain some source files under BSD:
FlexUnit4UIListener
FlexUnit4CIListener"
And then we're good to go. Did you reach the same conclusion?
-Alex
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:44 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to
> sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under
> the AL.
Which has no effect on the current release, the 70 odd Adobe files out of the
2000+ files have correct headers (now) and that is all that is require to
comply with the BSD licences in a source distribution. That's the first clause
of the BSD license. If we were to remove the headers then yes we would need to
include the license.
> means that these files may not truly be part of Apache.
Remember modifications have been made to some of these files so they need to
belong somewhere and I doubt we could submit the changes back to Adobe and have
them publish them.
BTW The Flex SDK does exactly the same thing with batik, velocity and xerces eg
it has a modified local versions. Only batik is mentioned in the NOTICE file
(which is odd as it is Apache licensed I believe) and none of them are
mentioned in the LICENSE file
Thanks,
Justin
