Alex, Justin, Before you go any further into this discussion, please remember that technically we don't even need to release the source for this. No one is going to download the source artifacts for the Installer.
The Installer is a convenience application we provide to our users so that they can easily download and assemble the SDK. Please keep the big picture in the mind before starting another licensing discussion. This list is very big and we don't want to waste the time with inconsequential discussions. Thanks, Om On Thu, 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 > >
