>> Then we need to decide whether we want the install scripts to prompt folks >> to accept Saxon or not, and whether we should continue to have folks >> approve OSMF and SWFObject like we currently do. > > We should probably be consistent. If we ask for OSMF we should for Saxon. It > seems clear to me that theirs no need to ask if we only include the jar, as > the source code isn't included, it can't be modified, and so the week copy > left provisions of MPL don't apply. But either way (if we ask or not) it's > not a blocker as the license requirements have been met. (Assuming it's added > to LICENSE.) > > Re SWFObject (MIT licensed) there no need to ask but again it's not a blocker > if we do, just unnecessary.
So, if I understand correctly, the current 'consensus' is that there need to be fixes to LICENSE and NOTICE. Alex has these all but done. Then there is the issue about the various installer prompts: we either include a Saxon prompt, or we decide not to and to be consistent we remove the OSMF prompt. My vote would be for option 2: less prompts improves user experience. And if we're removing prompt anyway, then the one for SWFObject seems to be an easy target, since that seems to be unneeded anyway. As RM, I choose to interpret the lack of response from both "gene...@incubator.apache.org" and "LEGAL-on-JIRA" as these issues being very much edge cases, and the Board won't disband the current PMC for publishing a release with the above best efforts. So: Alex, if you can please commit your suggested changes to LICENSE and NOTICE so Justin can review? And what would it take to remove the prompts for OSMF and SWFObject from the install scripts? Thanks, EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
