Hi gu Hire about this option: we ship the release and address this issue with asf legal to settle this discussion once and for all.
I understand Justin's point. On the other side I understand you guys, that want to get stuff out the door. I don't understand your continued objections to Justin's findings however. If I didn't understand it wrong, he is suggesting to add a mention of the license and to keep the headers in tact. What harm would there be done by this? So let's just do it in "develop", but release 0.7.0 now. Justin you are right, I could do my talk without, but being able to say "released yesterday" or "today" would be valuable help in getting people to look at it. Chris Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet. -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> Datum: 07.09.16 07:21 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1 Agreed. I’m not even convinced we need the mention of the MIT license for OpenFL (there was no verbatim code copied). Even if we do mention it, including the full license text is not a release blocker and can be treated as a bug for the next release. On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> 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.
