I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another pass on the changes.
Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there. It is called temp.12. I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should remove it from the kit. Carol [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405005&view=rev On 11/2/12 11 :03AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of >>>them >>> are "release blockers" >>> >>> 1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as >>> 2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file >>> 3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file >> >> This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans. >> >> It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open >>Sans >> fonts, at least according to this [1]. >> The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google >>Corporation >> but the license is Apache v2. >> >> I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE >>file >> since the general Apache license applies to them. >> >That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide. If >a >third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it >need mention in LICENSE. And does the copyright go some place for >binaries >like a .TTF file? > >-- >Alex Harui >Flex SDK Team >Adobe Systems, Inc. >http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
