On 1/2/15, 3:44 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >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.
My current summary is this: We cannot bundle Saxon in the binary package because there are classes in the Saxon jar that haven’t been approved as Apache-compatible. While other Apache projects “use” Saxon, the first four I looked at don’t appear to bundle it in their binary packages. At least, I don’t see saxon*.jar in the binary packages or mention of Saxon in the LICENSE and NOTICE files of those packages. The safest option, IMO, is to not bundle Saxon and have the build and install scripts download after a prompt just like we do for the Adobe font jars. That’s because Saxon is only used for ASDoc and many folks don’t need to generate ASDoc for their Flex apps, so it can be seen as an optional feature and the decision on whether Saxon is Apache-compatible can be deferred. IMO, we haven’t heard back from our questions because folks are still on holiday break. I was going to wait until Monday to ping folks on these questions. Independently, we can decide to remove the OSMF and SWFObject prompts unless Om can recall some discussion or the reason why we currently have prompts. Removal of these should be as simple as deleting some things from apache-flex-sdk-installer-config.xml. Anyway, I’ve checked in what I think we need to do to the build scripts, LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package and jars and the binary package other than Saxon. We can make changes later about prompts for downloads. -Alex
