On 9/6/16, 3:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC. > >So you’re advocating ignoring the terms of a 3rd party license and >ignoring ASF policy on releases? I'm not ignoring the policy. The policy states: "assuming that said license applies uniformly to all files" which isn't the case for the snippets we borrowed from OpenFL. > >I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot / >nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for >expediency here. Sure, there are alternatives. But IMO the community is best served by delivering a release for his talk. We have given every opportunity for folks to help make this happen. We can still make it happen. You have your opinion. We'll see what the other PMC members want to do. I encourage them to vote +1. > >> For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo. > >If it is MIT licensed then you need as per the terms of the license to >add the copyright and text of the licenses. It’s also ASF legal and >release policy. If you want an exception you would probably need to ask >VP legal before making an release. I've seen that been granted (usually >as a one off) in the past. The upstream dependency did not handle the license correctly, otherwise there would be a version we could copy from their repo. It isn't our job to fix that. Nor was it to fix the missing NOTICE from Google Closure. I can't see any bad thing happening from shipping what we have. The code will be under MIT license either way. I doubt anybody will try to jump through that hole. -Alex
