Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I hate this discussion fragmentation)
I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air artifacts, but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about one font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was an assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often and I was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo deployed back in the old days when he still did that. >From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from Adobe and >Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the stuff. At first I was >thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air artifacts at Sonatype and us >releasing our stuff at Apache with both ending up in Maven central. But >Sonatype explained that the permit had expired and Adobe didn't want to renew >it. So that door is closed. I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal and the feature seems to be working nicely. Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open repo: https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compiler~afe~~~ Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash so I was thinking about referencing this artifact for example: https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/content/com/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling the same way. I would become more and more a hack. Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we still rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start finding solutions to where to get them from or how to make the build-system cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check if afe is present only if font encoding is being used in the project and eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this for every external and optional dependency. Chris ________________________________________ Von: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: List of dependencies On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Om, > > Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them with > the search facility. Can you post the URLs? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > Here is what I found: http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos Chris can probably give you the correct list. Thanks, Om > On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is > >>the > >> >best way to move forward? > >> > > >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for > >>us, > >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe? > >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe > >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA > >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense > >>I > >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are > >>under > >> open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do > >>that. > >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe > >> Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without > >> explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all > >>of > >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok. > >> > >> > >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are > >today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI > >action. > > > >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others? > > > > > >> > > >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven, > >>so > >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing. > >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If > >>I > >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog. > >> > >> > >> > >Fair enough :-) > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > > > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >
