Re: [FlexJS} CreateJS Externs (was Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues)

On 3/14/17, 11:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate >>the >> CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a >> ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the

Re: [FlexJS} CreateJS Externs (was Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues)

Hi, > In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the > CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a > ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we > generate from CreateJS source. The Adobe legal team determined

Re: [FlexJS} CreateJS Externs (was Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues)

Hi, > In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the > CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a > ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we > generate from CreateJS source. The Adobe legal team determined

[FlexJS} CreateJS Externs (was Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues)

Justin's fix for CreateJS typedefs on Unix reminded me... In order to determine which steps I had to go through to try to donate the CreateJS Externs to the CreateJS community, it turns out I had to get a ruling from the Adobe legal team about who owned the "externs" files we generate from

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 11/1/16, 5:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >We still don’t have a reply from OpenFL or FlatUI. At this point given >it's been 3-4 weeks I don’t think we’ll get a reply. I'm on the fence about how much to bug them about this. I'd much rather we just not do

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, We still don’t have a reply from OpenFL or FlatUI. At this point given it's been 3-4 weeks I don’t think we’ll get a reply. Thanks, Justin

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/21/16, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we >> aren't always that responsive to new issues ourselves. > >For FlatUI I would say there’s not much activity so we’re unlikely to get >a

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we > aren't always that responsive to new issues ourselves. For FlatUI I would say there’s not much activity so we’re unlikely to get a response. > Still trying to get a response from my legal department. My employment

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/21/16, 5:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> I'd give them more than a week to respond. > >Another week has passed and no response. Can you tell if the lights are even on in these communities? I know we aren't always that responsive to new issues

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > I'd give them more than a week to respond. Another week has passed and no response. > I have not contacted CreateJS, but have started the process of getting > approved by Adobe folks to contact them. Any progress? Given the software is already under an Apache license and everyone has

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/13/16, 11:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >So I contacted both parties with pull requests a week ago and have >received no reply. > >For FlatUI that's not so surprising as there was no reply to another >licensing question asked by Alex way back in March and

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, So I contacted both parties with pull requests a week ago and have received no reply. For FlatUI that's not so surprising as there was no reply to another licensing question asked by Alex way back in March and there very little activity on the project. The pull request contains a LICENSE

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/6/16, 9:49 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> IMO, you have the option of not contacting them and not adding the >> headers. > >If we don’t contact them then we need to add the headers again as stated >on legal discuss. > >> I think more Flex PMC members

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

At this point we are going around in circles. Justin, if you can simply send a PR with a short explanation of why this is important to you, maybe they will just merge the PR. Let's not try to game out all the possibilities beforehand. Thanks, Om On Oct 6, 2016 9:49 AM, "Justin Mclean"

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > IMO, you have the option of not contacting them and not adding the > headers. If we don’t contact them then we need to add the headers again as stated on legal discuss. > I think more Flex PMC members would prefer that we simply don't do > anything about missing headers Several PMC

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/6/16, 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is >clear on the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s >IMO very likely that I will get no response and that means as per the

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On Oct 6, 2016 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is clear on the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s IMO very likely that I will get no response and that means as per the

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, My intention was never to throw weight around. So just so everyone is clear on the course of action if I approach them as an individual it’s IMO very likely that I will get no response and that means as per the discussion on legal discuss we need to add the headers. The ONLY case where we

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

bs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:58:32 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues > > I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s > less confrontational. I se

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

I would also prefer that Justin contact them as an individual. I think it’s less confrontational. I see no reason to do so as “an official representative of the PMC”. I see no benefit in doing so. On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Are other PMC members ok with

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, Anyone else have anything to add before I start working on this? Thanks, Justin

RE: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

IMHO if their project is licensed and their individual files are not licensed it's a non-issue at least as that is concerned. If what was said was true about just using a snippet and I'm understanding this thread correctly, then let's give them a attribution / reference back to the source and

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/3/16, 3:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> But if you are going to do something, it should be what is recommended > >I am doing what is recommend by policy and consensus on legal discuss. Roy says we can distribute the work if there are missing headers so

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > But if you are going to do something, it should be what is recommended I am doing what is recommend by policy and consensus on legal discuss. > Did you contact the upstreams? As I have stated I will yes and I will be doing that with my Flex PMC hat on. Thanks, Justin

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/3/16, 3:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> There are lots of non-ideal things in software that we don't have to >>invest time on. > >If you just let me JFDI the only investment would be my time and this >would of be sorted by now. But if you are going to

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > There are lots of non-ideal things in software that we don't have to invest > time on. If you just let me JFDI the only investment would be my time and this would of be sorted by now. > If the upstreams do not respond then we can > consider what to do in our repo next. This is

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/3/16, 2:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the >> OpenFL community? > >There will be commits to our repo. > >> Roy said that there is no obligation. > >He also said this isn't an ideal way

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the > OpenFL community? There will be commits to our repo. > Roy said that there is no obligation. He also said this isn't an ideal way to operate in the same email [1] He also stated adding an Apache header to a 3rd

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third >> party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think >> you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > Assuming "Fix header" means "notify upstream" and work with the third > party project until they are satisfied, feel free to do so, but I think > you are doing so as an individual, not as a representative of the ASF or > the Apache Flex PMC. Fix header means correct the issue with the

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 10/2/16, 6:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >The discussion on legal-discuss has died down [1] and this as I see it >the consensus: >1. Notify upstream and ask them to fix their issue. >2. Only parts of the license that relate to what is actually bundled >needs

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, The discussion on legal-discuss has died down [1] and this as I see it the consensus: 1. Notify upstream and ask them to fix their issue. 2. Only parts of the license that relate to what is actually bundled needs to be included. 3. When missing retrospectively adding headers and copyright

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, As you’ve raised it on legal discuss I wait until the discussion has finished there before making any changes. Thanks, Justin

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

On 9/20/16, 4:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > >> Remember that a senior Apache member recommended filing an >> upstream issue in this email [5]. > >That refers to a missing NOTICE file which is a different issue, how >notice files are handled is ASF policy and 3rd

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > Matrix.as [4] currently has the following added by me: > > // Implementation derived fromL > // https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/openfl/geom/Matrix.hx > // available under MIT License. > > I added this after the release. Which is OKish but we are not complying with it’s

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

IMO, there are 3 categories of inclusion: 1) Bundling an entire release artifact. 2) Bundling an entire file from a release artifact where the top-level license applies to that file. 2a) and then modifying that file 3) Copying portions of an existing work into an ASF-owned fie. Then there is a

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

gt; actually a derivate work ... at least that's the way I understood it ... > please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > Chris > > > Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. September 2016 10:18:34 > An: dev@flex.apa

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > For that matter, we did not even consume entire functions. The only thing I > took from there was the algorithms of some of the methods. Which is enough, converting an algorithm from one language to another doesn’t change the original copyright. Just reading someones other source code

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

For that matter, we did not even consume entire functions. The only thing I took from there was the algorithms of some of the methods. On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > AIUI, parts of OpenFL code was used for portions of Matrix.as. We are not > consuming their

Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues

Hi, > Are you proposing to get the OpenFL community to accept headers on their > source > files by submitting a pull request on their repos and then replicating > that header under the ASF header in Matrix.as? No I was going to add a header to make it clear that the code wasn’t originally