You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2016/10/03 01:09:12 UTC
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 for a 3rd party file is recommended (but not required).
4. Where copyright is not clear add a header but not the copyright line.
So given the above are their any objections for me to:
- Fix header and copyright for OpenFL
- Fix header and copyright for CreateJS
- Add header but not copyright for FlatUI (see discussion below)
I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for OpenFL and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.
For FlatUI there are 14 contributors to the repo [2] one main one (who looks to be no longer involved) and 3 other significant ones. There’s no obvious connection between them and designmodo (that I could find) other than they contributed to this repo. The license was originally CC BY 3.0 but changed to MIT in 2013 early in the projects history. [3] Their web site does claim copyright [4] but copyright is not stated on the github repo (even under the copyright and license section) [5]. So while it may be reasonable to assume designmodo are the copyright owners it's certainly possible that the other contributors have claims as well and it may be that all copyright holders did not give permission for their code to be relicensed.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201609.mbox/%3cD4077465.75C8D%25aharui@adobe.com%3e
2. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/graphs/contributors
3. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/issues/18
4. http://designmodo.com/flat-free/
5. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI
AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
+1 to let Justin proceed as he suggested.
Chris
________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2016 09:21:22
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 10/3/16, 3:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 there
must not be a policy violation involved.
>
>> Did you contact the upstreams?
>
>As I have stated I will yes and I will be doing that with my Flex PMC hat
>on.
I've been unclear on what your first step is going to be. Sounds like we
agree that the first step is to contact the upstreams.
Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do
other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd
parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It
would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't
know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler
for these details.
Thoughts?
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Anyone else have anything to add before I start working on this?
Thanks,
Justin
RE: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
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 call it good.
My vote would be that Justin can go off on his own and communicate with them without the general consensus of the PMC. If we would like to put it to an official vote we can so this can be put to rest. Until then I'm expressing a -1 for convoluting another project.
-Mark
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 6, 2016 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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
discussion on legal discuss we need to add the headers. The ONLY case where
we would not add the headers if if we approach them and they explicitly ask
us not to add headers. It also very likely that the copyright situation
will remain unclear which is also likely to have some impact.
Let's try without invoking the Flex PMC and wait for a few days. If they
don't respond, we can then make a call at that point.
Thanks,
Om
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/1/16, 5:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 anything. I don't see any reason not to wait until we get
closer to a release ourselves.
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/21/16, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 response.
>
>> Still trying to get a response from my legal department. My employment
>> agreement requires a lot of hoops to jump through before anything I
>>create
>> goes to another entity.
>
>Understand that but I'd assume if it's already under an Apache license
>and at the ASF then that would not apply?
I'm only authorized to donate Flex-related code to the ASF. I'm not
currently authorized to donate to any other communities. Adobe owns the
copyright of anything considered to be my work.
>
>Otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with the Apache license as it would
>have further restrictions on it.
The ASF doesn't like taking code that isn't donated. I gotta go through
this process so CreateJS isn't seen as taking code. You can keep asking
questions about it, but that's the steps I have to take.
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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
> agreement requires a lot of hoops to jump through before anything I create
> goes to another entity.
Understand that but I'd assume if it's already under an Apache license and at the ASF then that would not apply?
Otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with the Apache license as it would have further restrictions on it.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/21/16, 5:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 ourselves.
>
>> 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 signed ICLAs I’m not actually sure why you need to involve
>Adobe.
Still trying to get a response from my legal department. My employment
agreement requires a lot of hoops to jump through before anything I create
goes to another entity.
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 signed ICLAs I’m not actually sure why you need to involve Adobe.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/13/16, 11:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 there very little
>activity on the project. The pull request contains a LICENSE file,
>headers and I also nicely asked them to confirm copyright belongs to them
>and not the contributors. Given there's no reply my plan is to go ahead
>as per per the discussion on legal discuss I'll add the header / license
>without the copyright line.
>
>For openfl I’ve also receive any reply and again as per the discussion on
>legal discuss I’ll go ahead and add the header.
>
>Are there any objections to the above? Or anything else people want to
>add?
I'd give them more than a week to respond. IMO, no urgency here.
>
>Alex how is progress with the CreateJS licensing/header issue? Have you
>contacted CreateJS yet?
I have not contacted CreateJS, but have started the process of getting
approved by Adobe folks to contact them. Not sure how long that will take.
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 file, headers and I also nicely asked them to confirm copyright belongs to them and not the contributors. Given there's no reply my plan is to go ahead as per per the discussion on legal discuss I'll add the header / license without the copyright line.
For openfl I’ve also receive any reply and again as per the discussion on legal discuss I’ll go ahead and add the header.
Are there any objections to the above? Or anything else people want to add?
Alex how is progress with the CreateJS licensing/header issue? Have you contacted CreateJS yet?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/6/16, 9:49 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 would prefer that we simply don't do
>> anything about missing headers
>
>Several PMC members has asked for the headers to be added without
>contacting the 3rd party, but as you insisted I am willing to follow
>through with this, despite the extra effort and list email it generates
I think most folks who read this thread and the links you posted will
conclude differently.
In the end, I think most of the active contributors would prefer that
Apache Flex has a reputation for trusting the intent of 3rd parties.
Those of us in that camp realize that folks may not document their
licensing in the ideal way, but isn't that important. It appears to be
important to you, but that isn't the mainstream opinion in this community.
There may be other communities where more folks share your values, but
Apache Flex isn't one of them. Your efforts at this level of detail often
lead to frustration, not kudos, because then we have to spend time
reviewing your plans to make sure they don't conflict with the myriad of
information available from the legal-discuss folks. In this case, I
happened to recall legal-discuss advice to contact the third-parties first.
What all Apache Flex PMC members have common is a desire to get the
big-ticket items right, especially before the first RC gets cut. You have
spread your ASF time across more than one ASF project, and thus I don't
think you are always keeping up with what is going on this community. I
think we'd all experience less frustration if you would focus the time you
spend at Apache Flex on the issues on which we share values. That way
your reputation will build as "the guy who helps keep us from making a big
mistake" instead of "the guy who is too picky about stuff that doesn't
matter that much".
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
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" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 would prefer that we simply don't do
> > anything about missing headers
>
> Several PMC members has asked for the headers to be added without
> contacting the 3rd party, but as you insisted I am willing to follow
> through with this, despite the extra effort and list email it generates
>
> > try to get the IPMC to let you wear an IPMC hat.
>
> I don’t see the point as basically we will need to add the headers no
> matter what he outcome is, unless in the unlikely case they explicitly say
> not to.
>
> > Other members of the PMC who want to co-sign your email are welcome to
> do so.
>
> IMO There’s no need for it to be that formal. Either that say it’s OK or
> we have no reply and ether way we need to add the headers.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 members has asked for the headers to be added without contacting the 3rd party, but as you insisted I am willing to follow through with this, despite the extra effort and list email it generates
> try to get the IPMC to let you wear an IPMC hat.
I don’t see the point as basically we will need to add the headers no matter what he outcome is, unless in the unlikely case they explicitly say not to.
> Other members of the PMC who want to co-sign your email are welcome to do so.
IMO There’s no need for it to be that formal. Either that say it’s OK or we have no reply and ether way we need to add the headers.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/6/16, 8:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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
>discussion on legal discuss we need to add the headers. The ONLY case
>where we would not add the headers if if we approach them and they
>explicitly ask us not to add headers. It also very likely that the
>copyright situation will remain unclear which is also likely to have some
>impact.
IMO, you have the option of not contacting them and not adding the
headers. IOW, not spending any more energy on this issue, because you
change your mind and decide to align with many of your fellow PMC members
and decide to rely on "trust" and "intent". I think only you and maybe
Chris feel like something has to be done.
It seems contradictory to say you don't want to throw weight around but
you feel like you will have better success if you can wear your PMC hat.
I think more Flex PMC members would prefer that we simply don't do
anything about missing headers since we don't have to, so we don't want
you to present your request to the third parties as a PMC request. If you
think your request needs to have more influence, try to get the IPMC to
let you wear an IPMC hat.
We cannot control what words you use to contact the third-parties. If you
want to add the fact that you are on various PMCs that is your choice. I
assume you will make the effort so that your word choices do not imply
that the Flex PMC is supporting your efforts. Other members of the PMC
who want to co-sign your email are welcome to do so. IMO, if you take the
time to find the right words and generate a Pull Request that they can
just apply, your chances of success will be optimized. The PR probably
doesn't have to be for their full repo: for OpenFL, it can just be the
Matrix file, for designmodo, just the .less files.
Nit-picking about details of licenses and headers seems to be one of your
passions, but I don't think that passion is shared by most Flex community
members and in fact frustration has been expressed on several occasions.
I personally do appreciate it when you find the big-ticket issues, but
missing headers is not one of them. How/if/when you go about pursuing
your passions can influence how other community members perceive you.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 would not add the headers if if we approach them and they explicitly ask us not to add headers. It also very likely that the copyright situation will remain unclear which is also likely to have some impact.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Throwing around weight is generally not a good thing. Alex made a very reasonable suggestion on how he can approach them:
> "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing
> ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of
> licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of
> our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache
> projects and here's a patch that does that”
On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> So how about him approaching as "Justin who is member of the Flex PMC" asking him as an individual to please do XYZ?
>
>
> It would state that it's not the PMC asking, but would lay a little more weight on his appeal?
>
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Harbs <ha...@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 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 <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do
>> other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd
>> parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It
>> would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't
>> know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler
>> for these details.
>
AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
So how about him approaching as "Justin who is member of the Flex PMC" asking him as an individual to please do XYZ?
It would state that it's not the PMC asking, but would lay a little more weight on his appeal?
Chris
________________________________
Von: Harbs <ha...@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 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 <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do
> other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd
> parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It
> would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't
> know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler
> for these details.
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
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 <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do
> other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd
> parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It
> would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't
> know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler
> for these details.
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/3/16, 3:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 there
must not be a policy violation involved.
>
>> Did you contact the upstreams?
>
>As I have stated I will yes and I will be doing that with my Flex PMC hat
>on.
I've been unclear on what your first step is going to be. Sounds like we
agree that the first step is to contact the upstreams.
Are other PMC members ok with approaching the upstreams as a PMC? Do
other PMC members prefer to use "trust" and "intent" and not bother 3rd
parties on these details? Maybe I'm in the minority these days. It
would certainly end the debate if the upstreams added headers, but I don't
know if we want our project to have the reputation for being the stickler
for these details.
Thoughts?
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/3/16, 3:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 do something, it should be what is recommended,
not what you personally think is right. You thought that Greg's advice
wasn't general purpose. I double-checked and now 3 people have recommended
contacting the upstream before we start making changes on their behalf.
See from [1], Greg Stein on April 3, Henri on Sept 21, and Roy in [1].
>
>> If the upstreams do not respond then we can
>> consider what to do in our repo next.
>
>This is allready spelt out in [1] i.e. add the header if they don’t
>respond.
Did you contact the upstreams? If not, why do you think you don't need to
follow the advice and contact the upstreams?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>>> 1. http://markmail.org/message/t5q6f5i62peo44i3
>
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 allready spelt out in [1] i.e. add the header if they don’t respond.
Thanks,
Justin
>> 1. http://markmail.org/message/t5q6f5i62peo44i3
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/3/16, 2:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 to operate in the same email [1] He
>also stated adding an Apache header to a 3rd party MIT license is
>incorrect either the “Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>under one or more contributor license agreements.” is true or not. If it
>contains 3rd party code then this is not correct. [2]
In [1] he also suggest contacting the upstream. Please do so as an
individual since this is apparently important to you. There are lots of
non-ideal things in software that we don't have to invest time on. IMO,
this is one of them. [2] is from a different context about code donation
and doesn't apply here. If the upstreams do not respond then we can
consider what to do in our repo next. If they respond, then it is more
obvious what to do in the repo.
>
>> I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get
>> permission to donate the externs files to them.
>
>Which was something you suggested, but couldn’t find a volunteer to do
>so. [3] Are you planning on doing this? I also note that a couple of PMC
>members in that thread are also of the option that the header should be
>added.
In order to end the debate on this issue, I will seek to donate these
files when my manager re-surfaces from his vacation. Should be this week
or next week.
>
>1. http://markmail.org/message/t5q6f5i62peo44i3
>2. http://markmail.org/message/owuo2jqko27knkev
>3. http://markmail.org/message/reeagvhjwqg7wk7n
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 party MIT license is incorrect either the “Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements.” is true or not. If it contains 3rd party code then this is not correct. [2]
> Also, you will be the person agreeing to any CLA with the
> upstreams. The PMC and the ASF is cannot sign a CLA.
In this case I don’t intend to sign any ICLAs as all of the projects in question don’t use ICLAs. My employment contract allows me to own the IP not my employer of anything I donate.
> I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get
> permission to donate the externs files to them.
Which was something you suggested, but couldn’t find a volunteer to do so. [3] Are you planning on doing this? I also note that a couple of PMC members in that thread are also of the option that the header should be added.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/message/t5q6f5i62peo44i3
2. http://markmail.org/message/owuo2jqko27knkev
3. http://markmail.org/message/reeagvhjwqg7wk7n
AW: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
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?
Chris
________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Oktober 2016 18:42:18
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 ASF or
>> the Apache Flex PMC.
>
>Fix header means correct the issue with the header and notify upstream. I
>mentioned both in my email.
Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the
OpenFL community?
>
>I would be representing the Flex project with my Flex PMC hat on. Why
>would there an issue with that? There’s consensus on what action is
>required on legal discuss, or do you disagree with that? I think it would
>encourage them to make the changes if I explain where and how their code
>is being used.
IMO, there is different value for different things. Whether there is a
header in the OpenFL Matrix.hx file does not, AIUI, affect our ability to
ship Apache Flex releases. A senior Apache member said we can use "trust"
and "intent". I personally wish to do so here. Roy said that there is no
obligation.
I appreciate it when you find the big ticket items in our releases such as
a Category X or B dependency, and you are probably be best at finding
stuff like that, but once we are in the details of permissive licensing, I
would prefer that Apache Flex not build a reputation as a stickler. I
think we spend way too much time on the details within our community and
do not wish to make other communities spend more time than the value it
might return. Also, you will be the person agreeing to any CLA with the
upstreams. The PMC and the ASF is cannot sign a CLA.
If you want to say "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing
ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of
licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of
our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache
projects and here's a patch that does that" I think that would be even
more encouragement than just saying our one project wants them to change
something, but still you are representing yourself and how important you
think it is.
BTW, I don't recall that there was any upstream header fixes needed for
CreateJS. I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get
permission to donate the externs files to them.
>
>> Add header to where?
>
>Any source files that originally came from them that has a missing header.
AIUI, that is only their css/less files, and again, we did not start by
copying their files.
>
>> I assume you are planning to contact design modo as well?
>
>Yes as I stated in my email. see a few lines below which you also
>included in your reply.
>
>>> I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for
>>>OpenFL
>>> and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.
Feel free to contact them as an individual. I personally do not support
your questioning of their ability to license their code as MIT. You
could, in theory, write such a letter to providers of any code base
imported by Apache. The set of CLAs from third-parties for patches
accepted by Adobe before the donation to Apache is not public and making
Adobe rummage through that and defend itself would not put the ASF or
Apache Flex in good standing with Adobe, so I am personally uncomfortable
with having myself associated with any challenge to DesignModo or any
third-parties. Now if you want to contact them and say the exact same
thing I suggest you say to OpenFL and your patch uses a DesignModo
copyright therefore trusting that they have correctly handled ownership,
again, because Apache Flex is not obligated to do that, I still don't want
to be represented in this communication, but at least having them accept a
DesignModo-copyrighted MIT header would be a relatively quick improvement
to the ecosystem.
If other PMC members do want to have the PMC back Justin's communication
with the third-parties, please speak up. I'm only one person with one
opinion.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/2/16, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 ASF or
>> the Apache Flex PMC.
>
>Fix header means correct the issue with the header and notify upstream. I
>mentioned both in my email.
Again, to be clear, no commits to our repo, just a PR or patch to the
OpenFL community?
>
>I would be representing the Flex project with my Flex PMC hat on. Why
>would there an issue with that? There’s consensus on what action is
>required on legal discuss, or do you disagree with that? I think it would
>encourage them to make the changes if I explain where and how their code
>is being used.
IMO, there is different value for different things. Whether there is a
header in the OpenFL Matrix.hx file does not, AIUI, affect our ability to
ship Apache Flex releases. A senior Apache member said we can use "trust"
and "intent". I personally wish to do so here. Roy said that there is no
obligation.
I appreciate it when you find the big ticket items in our releases such as
a Category X or B dependency, and you are probably be best at finding
stuff like that, but once we are in the details of permissive licensing, I
would prefer that Apache Flex not build a reputation as a stickler. I
think we spend way too much time on the details within our community and
do not wish to make other communities spend more time than the value it
might return. Also, you will be the person agreeing to any CLA with the
upstreams. The PMC and the ASF is cannot sign a CLA.
If you want to say "Hey, I'm Justin and one of my specialties is reviewing
ASF releases and finding potential areas for improvement in handling of
licensing and headers and I noticed that you don't have headers in each of
our source files and adding them would help them be consumed by Apache
projects and here's a patch that does that" I think that would be even
more encouragement than just saying our one project wants them to change
something, but still you are representing yourself and how important you
think it is.
BTW, I don't recall that there was any upstream header fixes needed for
CreateJS. I thought the plan there was that I was going to try to get
permission to donate the externs files to them.
>
>> Add header to where?
>
>Any source files that originally came from them that has a missing header.
AIUI, that is only their css/less files, and again, we did not start by
copying their files.
>
>> I assume you are planning to contact design modo as well?
>
>Yes as I stated in my email. see a few lines below which you also
>included in your reply.
>
>>> I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for
>>>OpenFL
>>> and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.
Feel free to contact them as an individual. I personally do not support
your questioning of their ability to license their code as MIT. You
could, in theory, write such a letter to providers of any code base
imported by Apache. The set of CLAs from third-parties for patches
accepted by Adobe before the donation to Apache is not public and making
Adobe rummage through that and defend itself would not put the ASF or
Apache Flex in good standing with Adobe, so I am personally uncomfortable
with having myself associated with any challenge to DesignModo or any
third-parties. Now if you want to contact them and say the exact same
thing I suggest you say to OpenFL and your patch uses a DesignModo
copyright therefore trusting that they have correctly handled ownership,
again, because Apache Flex is not obligated to do that, I still don't want
to be represented in this communication, but at least having them accept a
DesignModo-copyrighted MIT header would be a relatively quick improvement
to the ecosystem.
If other PMC members do want to have the PMC back Justin's communication
with the third-parties, please speak up. I'm only one person with one
opinion.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
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 header and notify upstream. I mentioned both in my email.
I would be representing the Flex project with my Flex PMC hat on. Why would there an issue with that? There’s consensus on what action is required on legal discuss, or do you disagree with that? I think it would encourage them to make the changes if I explain where and how their code is being used.
> Add header to where?
Any source files that originally came from them that has a missing header.
> I assume you are planning to contact design modo as well?
Yes as I stated in my email. see a few lines below which you also included in your reply.
>> I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for OpenFL
>> and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Current FlexJS license/notice issues
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 10/2/16, 6:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> 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 to be included.
>3. When missing retrospectively adding headers and copyright for a 3rd
>party file is recommended (but not required).
>4. Where copyright is not clear add a header but not the copyright line.
>
>So given the above are their any objections for me to:
>- Fix header and copyright for OpenFL
>- Fix header and copyright for CreateJS
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.
>- Add header but not copyright for FlatUI (see discussion below)
Add header to where? I assume you are planning to contact designmodo as
well?
-Alex
>
>I’ll also ask upstream to fix any issues i.e. missing headers for OpenFL
>and missing license and copyright clarification for FlatUI.
>
>For FlatUI there are 14 contributors to the repo [2] one main one (who
>looks to be no longer involved) and 3 other significant ones. There’s no
>obvious connection between them and designmodo (that I could find) other
>than they contributed to this repo. The license was originally CC BY 3.0
>but changed to MIT in 2013 early in the projects history. [3] Their web
>site does claim copyright [4] but copyright is not stated on the github
>repo (even under the copyright and license section) [5]. So while it may
>be reasonable to assume designmodo are the copyright owners it's
>certainly possible that the other contributors have claims as well and it
>may be that all copyright holders did not give permission for their code
>to be relicensed.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1.
>https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201609.mbox/%3
>cD4077465.75C8D%25aharui@adobe.com%3e
>2. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/graphs/contributors
>3. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI/issues/18
>4. http://designmodo.com/flat-free/
>5. https://github.com/designmodo/Flat-UI