Hi Chris, Let me know if I can help in creating new plugin. I can give minimum 2 hours daily for this.
Thanks Gautam Thanks & Regards Gautam Pandey On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > wrote: > We had discussed possibilities of how this could be achieved. > Unfortunately Velo never requested users to officially sign an ICLA. So > they are still in possetion of the rights to that code. In order to donate > this, they would all have to agree. This is an enormous amount of people I > would have to ask. So we dropped this idea. We were thinking about creating > a new plugin here at apache. Unfortunately I have so much stuff to do here > that I can't find any time to work on that ... the skeleton is there though. > > But the GPL of Flexmojos shouldn't have any influence on what you build > with Flexmojos. As far as I know, it would only be problematic, if you > bundled Flexmojos itself with your product. > > Chris > > > ________________________________________ > Von: Gautam Pandey <gkpte...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 14:09 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Donation of Flexmojos > > Is there any progress in donating flexmojos to Apache? I am stuck because > of GPL and I cannot go forward and use 6.0.1 as my company is not allowing > to use GPL licensed software. > > Thanks & Regards > Gautam Pandey > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1/25/13 7:12 AM, "Greg Reddin" <gred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:35 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < > > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > > > > >> So ... does this have any impact on the plans to donate? Is it now > > harder > > >> to donate or does it make stuff even easier? > > >> > > > > > > To my knowledge the current licensing strategy of the product has no > > > bearing on its donation. My assumption is that, by donating it, Velo > > > asserts that he has intellectual property rights to the software, and > > he's > > > passing those rights on to Apache. Apache can then relicense the > software > > > if/when we get ready to release it. > > But I would say it means that a donation is now required. My idea of > > having > > you just borrow code from its current repository is now void because you > > cannot borrow GPL code. > > > > Also, there could be some trickiness in that Velo has to be certain that > he > > has the right to re-license the code as Apache license. Whether he does > > that before or after donation may not matter, but effectively, it is > being > > re-licensed. I don't know the GPL terms and what contributor agreement > he > > had, but that might dictate whether he has the authority to re-license. > > > > Finally, do we really have to have this code? How many of us committers > > will actually make changes to and release from this code base? If it > just > > Chris, then I would argue we don't really have a community around it. I > am > > not motivated to work on what has been described as a old monolithic > beast, > > but I would be more willing to help out with the new code for the Apache > > Flex releases. > > > > So, the way I see it, Velo has to re-license to Apache one way or another > > or > > we have to find a way not to copy significant portions of that code. > > > > -- > > Alex Harui > > Flex SDK Team > > Adobe Systems, Inc. > > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > > > > >
