I'm not quite sure I understand what steps you are planning to execute.
Inline are my questions:

On 9/19/16, 4:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>- Missing text of MIT license for OpenFL. Fix add header to OpenFL and
>add pointer to license text in LICENSE file.

AIUI, parts of OpenFL code was used for portions of Matrix.as.  We are not
consuming their entire release artifacts or even entire files.  Are you
proposing to get the OpenFL community to accept headers on their source
files by submitting a pull request on their repos and then replicating
that header under the ASF header in Matrix.as?  That's fine with me.  And
are you going to have the build download their LICENSE.md file from their
repo and adjust our LICENSE to point to it?  That's fine with me too.

>- Missing copyright and full fix of Flat UI. Fix is to and add pointer to
>license text in LICENSE file.

Again, we are not consuming an entire artifact or file.  Are you proposing
to submit a pull request to the Flat UI folks to have them put a correct
MIT license in their repo or README.md?  And then adjust our build to
download that and point to it from our LICENSE?  That's fine with me.

>- Patch file header issue. This is been discussed in another thread.
>Several PMC members have suggested keeping the original license header.
>Without the header this may be a licensing error, with the header it’s
>just a documentation issue. Fix is keep original license header until

I've been unable to find a volunteer to donate the end result to CreateJS,
but I still think that's the best course of action.  Unless there are
objections to donating these files to CreateJS, when my manager returns in
about 3 weeks I will seek permission to make the donation so we can avoid
debating this issue and maybe get some positive attention from the
CreateJS community.

>- I also like to bring the file more in line with policy and include
>pointers to the actual license text as described here [9].

If we do the steps above, what else will need a pointer?  And, if you have
time, what policy document requires pointers?  AIUI, the how-to is only a
how-to and not a policy document and certainly allows copied of licenses.

>There are also some issues with the binaries which I’ve raised (including
>in the 0.6 releases) but I’ve not had the chance to double check the
>current ones. [5][6][7][8]

Now is a good time to make adjustments.  Let us know in a similar fashion
what changes you propose.


>9. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps

Reply via email to