Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Where were these changes discussed? It changes what is required by the user legally to do when running through the installer.

It may of been a request from Adobe’s to you, but remember if it didn’t happen on list then it didn’t happen.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Are you saying you will vote -1 on every release from now on because the vendor of
> our runtime and build libraries asked for some changes to our install
> script language?

No.

Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 7/8/16, 12:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Now you know what changes they think they want.
>
>Not sure that I do. I only know what changes you have made so far (after
>Adobe legal made a private request 2 months ago). As you have said
>further changes may be required.
>
>And in that case as as far as I’m concerned then you need to take legal
>responsibility for this. Call me risk adverse but I’m not willing to
>second guess what Adobe legal may or may not want with this little to go
>on.

It is a change to the source.  The PMC will be voting on it.  Are you
saying you will vote -1 on every release from now on because the vendor of
our runtime and build libraries asked for some changes to our install
script language?

At some point, my Adobe legal contacts will say that some set of changes
to the source are sufficient for now.  Then you will know what they want.
At a higher level, they want to distribute playerglobal/airglobal under
the Flash, not Flex license, and make sure folks truly undertand they are
accepting the terms and conditions.  They could change their mind about
the wording in the future.  So could any of our other third-parties and
customers.  I don't see that the committer to acts on behalf of that
external entity has to take legal responsibility other than what the ICLA
says.  If we installed Java and Oracle wanted a change, would you have the
same response?

BTW, I'm sure you realize that Adobe does have the option of not letting
use cause the download of their artifacts.  As an individual, not as an
Adobe employee, I would do exactly what I'm doing now and politely abide
by the third-party's request and not push back.

Thanks,
-Alex

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Now you know what changes they think they want.

Not sure that I do. I only know what changes you have made so far (after Adobe legal made a private request 2 months ago). As you have said further changes may be required.

And in that case as as far as I’m concerned then you need to take legal responsibility for this. Call me risk adverse but I’m not willing to second guess what Adobe legal may or may not want with this little to go on.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 7/7/16, 11:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>HI,
>
>> I'm not sure I understand your line of questioning.  Don't we make the
>> same assumptions for any other third party, like the Flat fonts, for
>> example?
>
>IMO this is different, as only you have been contacted by Adobe legal and
>only you know what changes they are asking for.
>
>> If their legal team contacted someone besides me and asked for a
>> change, wouldn't a similar sequence of events take place?
>
>If they contacted me I would discuss with the PMC first. It may be that
>the PMC says no or that the PMC comes up with another solution that
>complies with what they want in a better way.
>
>I would also make sure that what they ask for is archived in the mailing
>list so the reasons for the changes are known and documented.
>
>> The information was shared not only with the PMC but with the public in
>>my earlier email
>> and this commit.
>
>All that was shared is that they requested that some unspecified changes
>be made at some point in the future.
>
>I still don’t know the full scope of what the changes are likely to be or
>how it will impact on future releases or users of the SDK.

Now you know what changes they think they want.  We are having the
discussion you seem to want.   It is being archived.   There might be
additional changes requested from any third-party or customer at any time
in the future.

Thanks,
-Alex

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

> I'm not sure I understand your line of questioning.  Don't we make the
> same assumptions for any other third party, like the Flat fonts, for
> example?

IMO this is different, as only you have been contacted by Adobe legal and only you know what changes they are asking for.

> If their legal team contacted someone besides me and asked for a
> change, wouldn't a similar sequence of events take place?

If they contacted me I would discuss with the PMC first. It may be that the PMC says no or that the PMC comes up with another solution that complies with what they want in a better way.

I would also make sure that what they ask for is archived in the mailing list so the reasons for the changes are known and documented.

> The information was shared not only with the PMC but with the public in my earlier email
> and this commit.  

All that was shared is that they requested that some unspecified changes be made at some point in the future.

I still don’t know the full scope of what the changes are likely to be or how it will impact on future releases or users of the SDK.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 7/7/16, 11:16 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> ... but where the Mavenizer causes the
>> distribution Adobe artifacts, Adobe Legal will want to review how it
>>looks
>> as well before it goes final.
>
>So they will want to review release candidates and the like?

No, there is no release candidate pending at this time.  We are making
changes during development like any other change to doc or code.  Adobe is
on holiday this week and I expect to hear from my legal contacts early
next week.  There are plenty of other bugs to fix before we cut a release
candidate so we have time.

>
>> Do we cause the downloading of Adobe artifacts in TDF and our other
>> non-SDK releases?
>
>Yes. Looks like AIR is download in flex-asjs, flex-falcon, flex-sdk and
>npm-flex. 

The above are SDK releases.  I asked about TDF and other things like
Squiggly.


>
>There’s also probably information on how to do so in READMEs or on the
>Wiki that may or may not need to be changed in order to comply with Adobe
>legal.

If you know of them, please list them so we don't forget them.

>
>Should we just assume unless you change something and/or someone from
>Adobe legal asks that everything is compliant? Also that the legal risk
>is yours alone as the information has not been shared with the PMC? What
>would happen in the event (for what ever reason at some point in the
>future) that you are no longer involved in the project?

I'm not sure I understand your line of questioning.  Don't we make the
same assumptions for any other third party, like the Flat fonts, for
example? If their legal team contacted someone besides me and asked for a
change, wouldn't a similar sequence of events take place?  The information
was shared not only with the PMC but with the public in my earlier email
and this commit.  

-Alex

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> No need to re-release anything at this point, and I doubt Adobe will push
> for it.

Good to hear.

> ... but where the Mavenizer causes the
> distribution Adobe artifacts, Adobe Legal will want to review how it looks
> as well before it goes final.

So they will want to review release candidates and the like? Can you explain what would be the process here?

> Do we cause the downloading of Adobe artifacts in TDF and our other
> non-SDK releases?

Yes. Looks like AIR is download in flex-asjs, flex-falcon, flex-sdk and npm-flex. Perhaps blaze-ds?

There’s also probably information on how to do so in READMEs or on the Wiki that may or may not need to be changed in order to comply with Adobe legal.

Should we just assume unless you change something and/or someone from Adobe legal asks that everything is compliant? Also that the legal risk is yours alone as the information has not been shared with the PMC? What would happen in the event (for what ever reason at some point in the future) that you are no longer involved in the project?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

No need to re-release anything at this point, and I doubt Adobe will push
for it.

These changes are not final yet.  Adobe Legal wanted to see how it looked,
and our community deserved to see how it might look before it goes final.
Adobe might have further suggestions, then we'll have a better idea of
what the Mavenizer will need to do, but where the Mavenizer causes the
distribution Adobe artifacts, Adobe Legal will want to review how it looks
as well before it goes final.  And we can update other scripts then as
well.

Do we cause the downloading of Adobe artifacts in TDF and our other
non-SDK releases?  If so, then we should review that as well for those
next releases.

-Alex

On 7/7/16, 10:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In order to comply with whatever it was that Adobe legal sent you, can
>you please explain:
>- What needs to change in the mazinizer?
>- What needs to be to change in the scripts that install the Flash player
>/ AIR versions and build an SDK for use with an IDE? (see scripts in
>FLexSDK /ide and /ide/flashbuilder)
>- What need to change in build.xml when prompted for Adobe downloads?
>- Similarly what needs to change in the jenkins.xml?
>- What if anything needs to change in TourDeFlex?
>- Are there any other changes we need to make when making any future
>releases of any of the Flex artefacts we have already released?
>- If any of the currently published release artefacts are not in
>compliance do we need to re-release them?
>- Do we need to take down any releases that is not in complaince?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

In order to comply with whatever it was that Adobe legal sent you, can you please explain:
- What needs to change in the mazinizer?
- What needs to be to change in the scripts that install the Flash player / AIR versions and build an SDK for use with an IDE? (see scripts in FLexSDK /ide and /ide/flashbuilder)
- What need to change in build.xml when prompted for Adobe downloads?
- Similarly what needs to change in the jenkins.xml?
- What if anything needs to change in TourDeFlex?
- Are there any other changes we need to make when making any future releases of any of the Flex artefacts we have already released?
- If any of the currently published release artefacts are not in compliance do we need to re-release them?
- Do we need to take down any releases that is not in complaince?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [3/5] git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - update license acceptance per Adobe legal

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@flex.apache.org:gte=70d:Adobe%20lega
l

On 7/7/16, 8:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Where were these changes discussed? It changes what is required by the
>user legally to do when running through the installer.
>
>It may of been a request from Adobe’s to you, but remember if it didn’t
>happen on list then it didn’t happen.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin