scott started this on the mtasc mailing list, but i think its worth us
discussing here...
i've stuck together the relevant parts :
=============
<scott>
Since every release of MTASC contains a 'std' folder containing the
Macromedia classes necessary to compile Flash projects with MTASC, I
have a couple of sugggestions:
1. Include all the (freely available and legally distributed) Macromedia
classes currently in use. For example, the Remoting classes which are
often neglected users new to Remoting who then have to track them down
on MM's pages etc. This will mean MTASC users will always have
everything they need to compile their projects at all times.
2. Make the class library available from CVS so the community can update
them when necessary without requiring Nicolas to take on an extra duty,
which will also allow for:
3. Those of us which like to compile with the -strict setting can modify
the MM classes to include strict typing as and when we use those classes
which require it. This means no one person will be stuck with the job of
updating all those classes, and they will become progressively more
complete over time. Each new release of MTASC will include the latest
set of classes in the std folder.
This won't affect users who compile with MMC since the MM compiler will
use the original MM classes. And MTASC compilers who prefer not to take
advantage of the strict type checking can simply not use -strict and/or
point to the MM classes too.
=============
This raises the question about re-distribution of MM's code.
David Rorex made this point :
You might want to check the license on all the macromedia classes, I
wouldn't be surprised if they didn't allow redistribution, which would
mean we couldn't do this.
=============
<scott>
True, I believe Grant Skinner faced legal issues when he wanted to
distribute gDispatcher and other modified classes a few years back. But
on the other hand I'm surprised that MTASC can distribute the core MM
classes for exactly the same reason - do the core classes not face any
legal redistribution issues, or does MM simply turn a blind eye to this?
=============
<me>
:)
i think this is a great idea, so maybe Mike and John (and any other MM
employees who read this list) can give us an idea of what MM's thinking
is about this.
If we cant re-distribute their code with modifications, then i can
imagine a scenario where we can distribute a patch file and some verbose
instructions about
1. where to get the MM code
2. how to apply the patch to make it compile with MTASC
but thats not pretty.
so...where do we go?
martin
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
