> Matrix.as [4] currently has the following added by me:
> // Implementation derived fromL
> //     https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/openfl/geom/Matrix.hx
> // available under MIT License.
> I added this after the release.

Which is OKish but we are not complying with it’s MIT license terms.

>  This is because whatever code Harbs did
> borrow came from a file that did not have a header.  What policy or
> precedent are you saying requires the synthesis of a header on behalf of
> OpenFL?

It’s come up a few times and advice has been on occasion to add a header but 
the answer may be it depends.The MadLib project has a similar issue (on a 
larger scale), advice was not to add headers, which is causing all sort of 
issues and is still open and needs to be sorted before graduation. Roy did 
state in that thread about that that adding an ASF header and a short comment 
(as has been done here) is not correct [1] - “Adding a comment after an 
inaccurate ASF header does not do the trick.”.

>  Remember that a senior Apache member recommended filing an
> upstream issue in this email [5].

That refers to a missing NOTICE file which is a different issue, how notice 
files are handled is ASF policy and 3rd parties don’t need to follow that. 
That's not to do with complying with the terms of a 3rd party license which 
applies to everyone (including us).

> Given that the source header policy [2] says not to modify third-party
> headers, it seems odd to be modifying a third-party license file.

Policy is not to remove or modify existing copyright or licenses (point 1). 
Modify here would refer to changing the terms of the license. Including the 
full text of the 3rd party license could be done but it this case it would be a 
documentation issue as it would refer to things that we don't actually bundled 
i.e this part "This product bundles SoundJS 0.6 …” would be incorrect as we 
don’t bundle SoundJS.

> Have you seen a past decision that it is ok to synthesize or subset a 
> third-party
> LICENSE file in order to use a pointer instead a copy?

Yes it happened with Apache Flex releases, we taken bits we know are bundled 
and added those to license rather than the whole original license. I also seen 
it it other projects where they have taken parts of bootstrap. Is it clearly 
spelt out in a policy document? No not that I can find, but if a 3rd party 
license refers to A + B and you are only bundling A then there no need to 
mention B. The guiding principle of only mentioning what is actually bundled 
would also apply here. Sightly different but it's also done when we have dual 
licensed bundled bits, we select the license we want and ignore the one we 
don’t want.

> We have noted that portions of this file came from someone else under a
> different license.  The copyright owner and full text are in LICENSE [6].

That text was not in the release, this has been added after the release by 
yourself so it would seem that you agree it needed to be added. [2] It’s still 
missing the full text for Flat UI.

> To me, [5] recommends having the FlatUI folks make changes so their use of
> the MIT license is “compliant"

Again that link refers to a missing NOTICE file in 3rd party code not licensing 
or headers.

> Otherwise, it seems odd for you to synthesize a version of the MIT license on 
> their
> behalf in our repo.  

OK so how do you suggest we abide by the terms of the MIT license if we don’t 
(as it states) include the text of the license?

> One you add a header to make a file third-party, can you remove the header 
> later?

I see no issue with that.

> I guess I don't understand why we should be ignoring the advice in [5].

We’re not. Abiding by ASF policy on NOTICE files is optional by 3rd parties, 
abiding by licensing terms is required by all.

> I won't veto any changes for OpenFL and Flat

Good I’ll make the changes.


Reply via email to