Hi Alex, The license is AL2 on Google Code. https://code.google.com/archive/p/nativeapplicationupdater/ <https://code.google.com/archive/p/nativeapplicationupdater/>
On Github - no licenses and no headers: https://github.com/google-code-export/nativeapplicationupdater <https://github.com/google-code-export/nativeapplicationupdater> https://github.com/search?q=NativeApplicationUpdater+&type=Repositories <https://github.com/search?q=NativeApplicationUpdater+&type=Repositories> Original programmer has not touched this in 7 years. Om? Regards, Dave > On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past. Adobe Legal will > say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there > with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license. It would > be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if > it didn't already have an OS license. I suppose I could go bug some > higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far. Maybe if > someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that. > > Adobe is happy to share code. I'm happy to share code. I'm sorry you are > not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your > assessment of the situation. I just want our users to be able to safely > use our code and install Flex with fewer problems. > > -Alex > > > On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe >> licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to >> the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think >> Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you >> think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with >> that. >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
