You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by "Michael A. Labriola" <la...@digitalprimates.net> on 2014/04/01 00:38:33 UTC
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
>Do anyone have any any objections to the current RC (copyright or otherwise) before I go to the effort of making another one? Has anyone actually tested the current RC for things that actually matter? Like that the signed fields are correct, it can compile and it actually works? I would like to keep the number of RCs down to a minimum.
I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and ensure it behaves as expected.
Mike
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> NOTICE and LICENSE look ok, but I still think we need to mention somewhere that there is BSD code in this source distribution.
> We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire BSD license).
There is no need to do so for MIT or BSD licences to be mentioned anywhere else when the MIT or BSD headers are kept in the relevant files(s) as per the discussion on incubator the other week:
"For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded in each dependency source file."
We have done that. If the headers has been replaced by an Apache ones then we would need to mention them.
Which option do you want?
1. Keep as it it currently
2. Added BSD and MIT back to LICENSE and remove the non Apache headers
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
You are correct it isn't explicit in a policy doc but my interpretation of kevan's post on legal discuss is that we can use text like I proposed.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
> Justin,
>
> To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on legal-discuss and general@incubator is that we must put a simple pointer into LICENSE. Something like:
>
> "The following folders contain some source files under BSD:
> FlexUnit4UIListener
> FlexUnit4CIListener"
>
> And then we're good to go. Did you reach the same conclusion?
I think by pointer they actually mean a URL or pointer to local copy of the full license text. I guess listing the directories could be a "pointer" as the license is in the header text. The original Flex Unit doesn't have an online licence file we can point to which may mean we need to put the full licence in.
As far as I can see there's no clear answer if you need to list the files or not in the LICENCE file.
But it does seem clear that they so need to go in the LICENSE file, after we put them in and then took them out again.
Do we know any projects that have done this to see what they do?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Justin,
>
> To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on legal-discuss and general@incubator is that we must put a simple pointer into LICENSE. Something like:
>
> "The following folders contain some source files under BSD:
> FlexUnit4UIListener
> FlexUnit4CIListener"
>
> And then we're good to go. Did you reach the same conclusion?
I think by pointer they actually mean a URL or pointer to local copy of the full license text. I guess listing the directories could be a "pointer" as the license is in the header text. The original Flex Unit doesn't have an online licence file we can point to which may mean we need to put the full licence in.
As far as I can see there's no clear answer if you need to list the files or not in the LICENCE file.
But it does seem clear that they so need to go in the LICENSE file, after we put them in and then took them out again.
Do we know any projects that have done this to see what they do?
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Justin,
To see if we're on the same page, my take away from the threads on legal-discuss and general@incubator is that we must put a simple pointer into LICENSE. Something like:
"The following folders contain some source files under BSD:
FlexUnit4UIListener
FlexUnit4CIListener"
And then we're good to go. Did you reach the same conclusion?
-Alex
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:44 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under the AL.
Which has no effect on the current release, the 70 odd Adobe files out of the 2000+ files have correct headers (now) and that is all that is require to comply with the BSD licences in a source distribution. That's the first clause of the BSD license. If we were to remove the headers then yes we would need to include the license.
> means that these files may not truly be part of Apache.
Remember modifications have been made to some of these files so they need to belong somewhere and I doubt we could submit the changes back to Adobe and have them publish them.
BTW The Flex SDK does exactly the same thing with batik, velocity and xerces eg it has a modified local versions. Only batik is mentioned in the NOTICE file (which is odd as it is Apache licensed I believe) and none of them are mentioned in the LICENSE file
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under the AL.
Which has no effect on the current release, the 70 odd Adobe files out of the 2000+ files have correct headers (now) and that is all that is require to comply with the BSD licences in a source distribution. That's the first clause of the BSD license. If we were to remove the headers then yes we would need to include the license.
> means that these files may not truly be part of Apache.
Remember modifications have been made to some of these files so they need to belong somewhere and I doubt we could submit the changes back to Adobe and have them publish them.
BTW The Flex SDK does exactly the same thing with batik, velocity and xerces eg it has a modified local versions. Only batik is mentioned in the NOTICE file (which is odd as it is Apache licensed I believe) and none of them are mentioned in the LICENSE file
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Again inline prefixed by "Alex:"
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:03 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss.
I've already asked on general@icubator - given they deal with LICENCE an dNOTICE all of the time it seemed a good place to ask.
I guess I missed that. I saw you ask about the IP clearance issue.
> Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not including the full text of the MIT and BSD licenses in the LICENSE file.
Then why do you want to add BSD back into LICENCE? Adding the short or long version has the same effect legally and is not required for source distributions (see below).
Alex: I don't want to add BSD to license. My interpretation of the document is that we just have to say what I suggested, that some files are under BSD. No need to include any text from the BSD license.
> Apache does not have a license to those files.
Not sure what you mean there, they are licensed under BSD and by the terms of the BSD licence we can use the source code as long as we leave the headers in place. Note that it's only a binary distribution that requires the BSD licence to be placed elsewhere. That's 2 of the 3 clauses of the BSD licence.
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The header are the only place the BSD license is found in FlexUnit 1 [1] - there is no LICENSE file or anything else.
Alex: I am not totally clear on this part, but Adobe still says Adobe has to sign a software grant before those FlexUnit 1 files can get re-licensed under the AL. That plus my interpretation that the LICENSE file should warn folks that there are non-AL files in the distributions means that these files may not truly be part of Apache. I've asked on the legal-discuss thread how/why it makes a difference if we check in BSD files into the repo vs downloading them from some other non-Apache source.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss.
I've already asked on general@icubator - given they deal with LICENCE an dNOTICE all of the time it seemed a good place to ask.
> Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not including the full text of the MIT and BSD licenses in the LICENSE file.
Then why do you want to add BSD back into LICENCE? Adding the short or long version has the same effect legally and is not required for source distributions (see below).
> Apache does not have a license to those files.
Not sure what you mean there, they are licensed under BSD and by the terms of the BSD licence we can use the source code as long as we leave the headers in place. Note that it's only a binary distribution that requires the BSD licence to be placed elsewhere. That's 2 of the 3 clauses of the BSD licence.
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The header are the only place the BSD license is found in FlexUnit 1 [1] - there is no LICENSE file or anything else.
> Alex: Because we normally ask those filing bugs to provide steps to reproduce.
It's on my list to do, but I'm not full time on this project or paid to work on it so not sure when I'll be able to get to it.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://opensource.adobe.com/svn///opensource/flexunit/trunk/
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Apologies for the email formatting. My replies prefixed by "Alex:"
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 4:50 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Hi,
> Aren't you going to cut an RC4?
No until the license issue is resolved, otherwise it just a waste of time.Looks like no committers have even tested any of the previous three RCs because of this issue.
> All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or LICENSE something like:
If you're not even sure on what is required how can this be resolved? Can you please get a Mentor to make a ruling on this or have someone with more experience in crafting NOTICE and/or LICENSE files give their expert opinion. I can't see any other way of getting this released without endless release candidates.
If you can't do then then I suggest we drop support for Flex Unit 1 and the UI runner and make a future release with these things in it once this matter is resolved.
Alex: Ok, I'll ask on legal-discuss.
> but I've seen the incubator be picky about LICENSE and NOTICE so I think it is important.
Yes it is important. Can you please tell what about this you don't understand?
""For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded in each dependency source file."
The whole point of this (and it's been a fairly recent shift in Apache policy I believe) it to make LICENSE and NOTICE files contain the minimum content required and not become a burden to downstream projects or users of the project.
Alex: No disagreement there. I think we've handled that correctly by not including the full text of the MIT and BSD licenses in the LICENSE file.
If you read "Bundling Permissively-Licences Dependanies" from [1] it states:
"Bundling a dependency which is issued under one of the following licenses is straightforward, assuming that said license applies uniformly to all files within the dependency"
This is not the case here we have a small number of files which have MIT and BSD in a large number of file which have Apache headers. Flex unit 1 is not a "dependancy" by any reasonable definition of the word.
Alex: I still think the Adobe BSD code is a dependency. IIUC, Apache does not have a license to those files. Hence it is third-party. Yes, I supposed these are optional features we could drop, but IMO, the goal of this release should be at least parity. You are right that the "Bundling Permissively Licensed Dependencies" section does not cover how to handle our particular situation. So I will ask for a ruling.
> And would the hard-liners like sebb agree?
Not 100% sure but I think he probably would agree that what we have current is fine but that's up to him to say. He probably want the shorter link to licences form, but that's not a blocker.
> FWIW, the same reason you want to get past this release is the same reason I wanted to get past the Installer 3.0 release.
That is a unreleated issue, the issue with the installer release were mostly technical not NOTICE/LICENSE related.
> I keep hoping you'll find time to figure out the steps to reproduce that one issue
As I stated before I believe it happens when the FLEX SDK have a different version of AIR to what air home points to. Why don't you try it?
Alex: Because we normally ask those filing bugs to provide steps to reproduce.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Aren't you going to cut an RC4?
No until the license issue is resolved, otherwise it just a waste of time.Looks like no committers have even tested any of the previous three RCs because of this issue.
> All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or LICENSE something like:
If you're not even sure on what is required how can this be resolved? Can you please get a Mentor to make a ruling on this or have someone with more experience in crafting NOTICE and/or LICENSE files give their expert opinion. I can't see any other way of getting this released without endless release candidates.
If you can't do then then I suggest we drop support for Flex Unit 1 and the UI runner and make a future release with these things in it once this matter is resolved.
> but I've seen the incubator be picky about LICENSE and NOTICE so I think it is important.
Yes it is important. Can you please tell what about this you don't understand?
""For source redistributions, the MIT, 2-clause BSD, and 3-clause BSD licenses are all satisfied by retaining the license text and copyright notice embedded in each dependency source file."
The whole point of this (and it's been a fairly recent shift in Apache policy I believe) it to make LICENSE and NOTICE files contain the minimum content required and not become a burden to downstream projects or users of the project.
If you read "Bundling Permissively-Licences Dependanies" from [1] it states:
"Bundling a dependency which is issued under one of the following licenses is straightforward, assuming that said license applies uniformly to all files within the dependency"
This is not the case here we have a small number of files which have MIT and BSD in a large number of file which have Apache headers. Flex unit 1 is not a "dependancy" by any reasonable definition of the word.
> And would the hard-liners like sebb agree?
Not 100% sure but I think he probably would agree that what we have current is fine but that's up to him to say. He probably want the shorter link to licences form, but that's not a blocker.
> FWIW, the same reason you want to get past this release is the same reason I wanted to get past the Installer 3.0 release.
That is a unreleated issue, the issue with the installer release were mostly technical not NOTICE/LICENSE related.
> I keep hoping you'll find time to figure out the steps to reproduce that one issue
As I stated before I believe it happens when the FLEX SDK have a different version of AIR to what air home points to. Why don't you try it?
Thanks,
Justin
1.https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I've asked on general@icubator to see if anyone can resolve this.
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I'm not sure I agree that it has to be "entire".
Aren't you going to cut an RC4? All I think the licensing "how to" says is that we add to the README or LICENSE something like:
Some source files in the FlexUnit4UIListener and FlexUnit4CIListener are copyright Adobe Systems Inc. and licensed under BSD.
We are not going in circles about putting the full license back in LICENSE. I understand I'm being picky, but I've seen the incubator be picky about LICENSE and NOTICE so I think it is important. Think of it this way: since you are now on the Incubator PMC, would you let podlings release and/or graduate with just practicing the "intent" of the notice file policies? And would the hard-liners like sebb agree? They just took Cordova to task for "intent" instead of "letter" of the release process. And there recently was that other long thread about LICENSE and NOTICE.
FWIW, the same reason you want to get past this release is the same reason I wanted to get past the Installer 3.0 release. I still haven't closed that vote mainly because we aren't going to announce it until 4.12.1, but partially because I keep hoping you'll find time to figure out the steps to reproduce that one issue, and/or decide maybe it isn't that important and change your vote in the official VOTE thread. Otherwise the results have to point to the DISCUSS thread or we'll announce the results with your -1 in it. If you don't want to spend any more time not the Installer let me know and I'll just close the vote as is.
-Alex
________________________________________
From: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:26 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
HI,
> We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire BSD license). See where it says "add a pointer" in https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
This would apply if we where bundling an entire MIT/BSD dependant project and not just a few files.
All of the source code has the correct license header all of the 3rd party people are correctly referred to in the source NOTICE and LICENSE files, there may be one or two areas where it's a little unclear but we're certainly abiding with the intent if not the actual letter of the rules. Can we please stop going around in circles with this I would rather my time on this project was spent on something else more productive like actually release this so user can use it and fixing bugs.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire BSD license). See where it says "add a pointer" in https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
This would apply if we where bundling an entire MIT/BSD dependant project and not just a few files.
All of the source code has the correct license header all of the 3rd party people are correctly referred to in the source NOTICE and LICENSE files, there may be one or two areas where it's a little unclear but we're certainly abiding with the intent if not the actual letter of the rules. Can we please stop going around in circles with this I would rather my time on this project was spent on something else more productive like actually release this so user can use it and fixing bugs.
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I haven't run tests since RC1, but I don't think any code changed, did it?
NOTICE and LICENSE look ok, but I still think we need to mention somewhere that there is BSD code in this source distribution. Maybe in the README before the section on other dependencies?
We could (should?) also mention this fact in LICENSE (but not copy the entire BSD license). See where it says "add a pointer" in https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
Other than that I think I'm all set.
-Alex
________________________________________
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski [nicholas@spoon.as]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:45 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
It looks like the asdocs are missing for this... In each of the binary
packages + source packages there is a docs folder, but it is empty.
I am working on migrating the FlexUnit tutorials on the website (not
complete yet). http://flex.staging.apache.org/flexunit/tutorial/ Should
have it complete in a few days, but I am missing the donated asdocs as well.
-Nick
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and
> ensure it behaves as expected.
>
> Thanks Mike much appreciated.
>
> Given the changes between RC3 and what will be RC4 consist of 2 header
> files changes I will be carrying over votes.
>
> So if you vote +1 on RC3 that will carry over to a +1 vote on RC4
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
It looks like the asdocs are missing for this... In each of the binary
packages + source packages there is a docs folder, but it is empty.
I am working on migrating the FlexUnit tutorials on the website (not
complete yet). http://flex.staging.apache.org/flexunit/tutorial/ Should
have it complete in a few days, but I am missing the donated asdocs as well.
-Nick
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and
> ensure it behaves as expected.
>
> Thanks Mike much appreciated.
>
> Given the changes between RC3 and what will be RC4 consist of 2 header
> files changes I will be carrying over votes.
>
> So if you vote +1 on RC3 that will carry over to a +1 vote on RC4
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Release Apache Flex FlexUnit 4.2.0 RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and ensure it behaves as expected.
Thanks Mike much appreciated.
Given the changes between RC3 and what will be RC4 consist of 2 header files changes I will be carrying over votes.
So if you vote +1 on RC3 that will carry over to a +1 vote on RC4
Thanks,
Justin