Re: AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 10/3/16, 9:56 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote: >Please ... what is the problem here? I really don't get it. > > >Justin found stuff that we could live with and have a slight risk or we >change things and don't have that slight risk. Now you might think that >it's not worth fixing ... fine. But as far as I understood it Justing is >willing to do everything needed to resolve this issue. > > >I couldn't get from your emails that you think it's wrong, you just think >it's not worth it or not our responsibility. So let Justin do these >changes and get on with it. Right now it doesn't feel as if he's bugging >the project, but it's your resistance to let him change the things that >result in this topic popping up again and again and I would be happy to >finally settle this. > > >Do we have to put up a vote? > No further discussion is needed if Justin is acting as an individual. Nobody can stop him anyway. But he said he wanted to approach these communities with his Apache Flex PMC hat on, and I am uncomfortable with being associated with trying to get non-ASF folks to be picky about the file headers. The difference between "Hey, I am passionate about getting headers into files in the open source world and here's a patch that does that" vs "The Apache Flex PMC wants you to put these headers into your files" is a big difference to me. Justin's passion about these matters is not shared by me. But again, that's just my opinion. -Alex
Re: AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 9/20/16, 3:34 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote: >I'm no lawyer, but even if you only copy+paste an If statement that's >actually a derivate work ... at least that's the way I understood it ... >please correct me if I'm wrong. > I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is different. Let's say the Foo project is MIT licensed. If I take one if statement from that project's source and put it in a file that is otherwise entirely written by me, my understanding is that it does not make my file a derivative of the Foo project. It can then be thought of as a compilation [1]. We should give attribution to the Foo project as other written works do for quoting anything else, and the Foo project contributor who wrote that line of code still owns copyright to that line of code, and modifications of that line of code is under the MIT license, but that doesn't, IMO, mandate copying a header from their source file into our source file. And in fact, the MIT license in particular says that the license only needs to be "included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software". [1] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html
