On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > And from [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally > > required." > > That correct but attribution IS legally required. Any license that > requires attribution needs to be added to NOTICE. I checked with a member > here at ApacheCon and they confirmed that is the case. > > > I wish I’d seen this sooner. Or did you already ask? > > I did point it out ages ago and asked if anyone had any objections - there > were none. This content was actually in the previous release so it's not > new and it has already been voted on and released. Most of the content on > wikipedia was actually written by me (but not that that probably matters). > > > Or how about this alternative? Since you aren’t linking to text from > > wikipedia and instead are copying text from wikipedia, how about we copy > > text from blogs.apache.org/flex? Then we can avoid this whole > > LICENSE/NOTICE issue completely. > > I probably won't have time to do that until after ApacheCon and I'm back > in Australia. I'd suggest we release what we have now. As it already has > been released so if it is in error we've already done that. Lets fix and > rerelease if and when we have a clearer understanding on what should be > done. > > As I said worse case is we have something extra in NOTICE and that is not > a licensing error. There are many Apache project that has too much in > NOTICE (ie MIT and BSD). Having something missing from NOTICE however is a > licensing error. Also there are zero projects that depend on Tour De Flex > having the extra content in NOTICE has zero effect even if it is not > required. > > Thanks, > Justin +1 to release what has already been voted upon. We can always push another release with the fixes you are discussing. Thanks, Om
