You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2014/08/21 23:23:25 UTC
[IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Apache Flex received the Radii8 code base from Judah Frangipane.
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/flex-radii8.html
Please vote to approve this contribution. Lazy consensus applies. If no -1
votes are cast within the next 72 hours, the vote passes.
Thanks,
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 22 August 2014 05:43, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mostly good but -1 (binding) as it still needs a little more clean up
>
-1 (binding), but I hope the project can fast solve the minor issues
mentioned. The code granted seems well written and quite interesting.
>
> First off the code in bundle for IP clearance doesn't match what is
> recorded in the grant. The grant specifies this [1]. Not sure if this is a
> major issue or not but I expected them to be the same.
>
at least the differences should be explained, especially if the bundle
contain files not mentioned in the grant, so quessing is avoided.
> While the Github repo only has one user, some of the code varies in style
> which may indicate that the code came from multiple people/sources and is
> of unknown licence. For example concatenateMetaDataXMLItems in
> ClasSUtils.as in com.flexcapacitor.utils. A quick google search turns up
> the same code here [2] which a) predates the code being in the github repo
> and may of been where the code may of came from. Of course not easy to tell
> but this at least needs confirmation that this is not an issue. I notice
> that this file may incorrectly have an Apache licence header but they
> depends on the license of the code in question. In the same file I also see
> isSimple which looks like it was copied from the Flex SDK (not an issue
> just an observation) but could also indicate that source in this file has
> come from various different places. I only checked a couple of methods in
> that file and only a few likely files so there may be other files/methods
> with similar issues in the donation.
>
> Solution is to get the donor to double check that all code was written by
> then and/or has a compatible licence, in particular when the style is
> different.
>
While it can be hard to identify copied code, the bare minimum is that
donor states its not copied code or donor/project identifies the license in
the original source, and put a clear remark in the source, giving
contribution to the original owner.
> There are also possibly some icons than may have non compatatble licences
> in there. I'm not aware of the original license of the icons but as most
> icons have been blacked out I assume that it was a non compatible one.
>
> Here are some of the non blacked out ones. I may of missed some.
>
> ./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure.png
> ./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> ./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/divider_vertical.png
> ./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> ./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more.png
> ./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more2.png
> ./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead_light.png
> ./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead.png
>
> Easy solution is to black out these files - assuming they have an
> incompatible licence that is.
>
> A minor issue may exist with the binary file PortraitMode.psd. Does this
> need to be a photoshop file or can it be converted to a different format?
> If not are we OK with photoshop files in the repo?
>
>
I am in general not happy with binary files in vendor specific format, by
redistributing such files as ASF (not as an individual) we may run into
license violations.
In case such a file really need to be part of the repo, please acompany it
with a text file, that clearly states why the file needs to be in that
format and whether the vendor (in this case adobe) has any redistribution
restrictions.
I'll also note that these issues could of been fixed before bringing it to
> the incubator if the Flex PMC rather than a single person had been involved
> in grant process.
>
In our busy world, its often few people that move things so I dont expect
every PMC to be involved in everything every day. One of the reasons why we
vote for a release is to have a synchronization point (point of no return),
where the whole PMC must (should) care.
rgds
jan i
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1 https://github.com/monkeypunch3/Radii8/tree/ApacheFlexRelease1.0
> 2. http://pastebin.com/b5zPNGWF
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> It would not be wise to require public scrubbing, and nothing speaks
> against informing the grantor what needs to done, and let the grantor do a
> scrubbed release.
And nothing speaks against involving the PMC in the process on it's private list, IMO that should be encouraged. It would be better to resolve any issues at the PMC level before bringing it to the incubator as the PMC may have a better insight to what issues could exist and collaboratively fix them.
See [1] for instance "The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work." note it doesn't state the person handling the grant.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi
>>>> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">"
>>>> and ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc).
Give that the origin of the original icons are unknown and presumedly the non blacked out icons in question came from the same place (although that is also unknown). If so they would have the same licence and we would need to abide by the terms of that license.
A simple question do we know where they come from?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 22 August 2014 22:16, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/22/14 12:59 PM, "jan i" <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >In my opinion you did the right thing, but I could not find the process
> >you
> >ran through documented.
> >
> >I would have liked to see a txt file, documenting
> >1) that you changed the files, of course with permission
> >2) which files you removed.
> >
> >Having done that, would have avoided questions, and it was documented for
> >the future.
> OK, I will add that to the next review request after we resolve the
> question about the one source file and the icons. Do you have any
> experience or opinion to offer on point #2 (below).
> >
> >
> >> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">"
> >>and
> >> ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc). My scanners did not
> >> pick up any copyright notices in those files. Folks with more
> >>experience:
> >> Does the grantor need to provide proof-positive in order to get
> >>clearance,
> >> or do we trust the provenance if there is no evidence to the contrary?
>
I have little experience with graphic art work, and how licenses apply, but
I asked a friend who do graphic work for companies.
He told me there exist 3 simple rules:
1) if the file contain a copyright text (typically in the metadata), you
cannot distribute it without permission
2) if the file is blank and it is non-branded "simple" artwork (like in
your case), it can be freely distributed (open license)
3) branded artwork (like logos), need explicit permission to distribute
However there might be people on this list, who have better input.
rgds
jan i
>>
> >> 3) Is there a restriction agains PSD files? We have some checked into
> >>SVN
> >> for our website already.
> >>
> >
> >Remark there is a big difference between having content (in general) on a
> >web page, or part of a release
> I saw your comment in a prior post about redistribution restrictions. I
> will investigate.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/22/14 12:59 PM, "jan i" <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>In my opinion you did the right thing, but I could not find the process
>you
>ran through documented.
>
>I would have liked to see a txt file, documenting
>1) that you changed the files, of course with permission
>2) which files you removed.
>
>Having done that, would have avoided questions, and it was documented for
>the future.
OK, I will add that to the next review request after we resolve the
question about the one source file and the icons. Do you have any
experience or opinion to offer on point #2 (below).
>
>
>> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">"
>>and
>> ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc). My scanners did not
>> pick up any copyright notices in those files. Folks with more
>>experience:
>> Does the grantor need to provide proof-positive in order to get
>>clearance,
>> or do we trust the provenance if there is no evidence to the contrary?
>>
>> 3) Is there a restriction agains PSD files? We have some checked into
>>SVN
>> for our website already.
>>
>
>Remark there is a big difference between having content (in general) on a
>web page, or part of a release
I saw your comment in a prior post about redistribution restrictions. I
will investigate.
Thanks,
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 22 August 2014 19:46, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Good questions, I have asked the grantor about that one source file.
> Maybe incubator folks with more experience can help answer these questions.
>
I am no an Incubator IP-clearance specialist, but I give my input based on
my industrial experience.
>
> 1) Regarding the package matching the grant. The code base granted was
> not going to pass IP clearance. It needed headers and a proper LICENSE
> and NOTICE. I was given authority by the grantor to update headers. I
> took the granted software, added headers, threw out a few files (with the
> grantor's permission) I found while doing so that would not pass IP
> clearance and presented that package for review. Folks with more
> experience: is this a correct procedure or should I have proceeded some
> other way?
>
In my opinion you did the right thing, but I could not find the process you
ran through documented.
I would have liked to see a txt file, documenting
1) that you changed the files, of course with permission
2) which files you removed.
Having done that, would have avoided questions, and it was documented for
the future.
> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">" and
> ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc). My scanners did not
> pick up any copyright notices in those files. Folks with more experience:
> Does the grantor need to provide proof-positive in order to get clearance,
> or do we trust the provenance if there is no evidence to the contrary?
>
> 3) Is there a restriction agains PSD files? We have some checked into SVN
> for our website already.
>
Remark there is a big difference between having content (in general) on a
web page, or part of a release
> 4) Is the grantor of a code base required to do pre-donation scrubbing in
> public? Every Adobe donation I worked on was scrubbed internally then a
> grant was submitted and a package submitted for IP clearance. I would
> think many grantors would not want to have the scrub public as early
> scrubs could end up naming names or discovering potentially embarrassing
> mis-use of IP.
>
It would not be wise to require public scrubbing, and nothing speaks
against informing the grantor what needs to done, and let the grantor do a
scrubbed release.
I can painfully confirm, that many grantor dont like public scrubbing or
for that matter being publicly told that they have license problems, that
is something best kept off-public.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 8/21/14 8:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Mostly good but -1 (binding) as it still needs a little more clean up
> >
> >First off the code in bundle for IP clearance doesn't match what is
> >recorded in the grant. The grant specifies this [1]. Not sure if this is
> >a major issue or not but I expected them to be the same.
> >
> >While the Github repo only has one user, some of the code varies in style
> >which may indicate that the code came from multiple people/sources and is
> >of unknown licence. For example concatenateMetaDataXMLItems in
> >ClasSUtils.as in com.flexcapacitor.utils. A quick google search turns up
> >the same code here [2] which a) predates the code being in the github
> >repo and may of been where the code may of came from. Of course not easy
> >to tell but this at least needs confirmation that this is not an issue.
> >I notice that this file may incorrectly have an Apache licence header but
> >they depends on the license of the code in question. In the same file I
> >also see isSimple which looks like it was copied from the Flex SDK (not
> >an issue just an observation) but could also indicate that source in this
> >file has come from various different places. I only checked a couple of
> >methods in that file and only a few likely files so there may be other
> >files/methods with similar issues in the donation.
> >
> >Solution is to get the donor to double check that all code was written by
> >then and/or has a compatible licence, in particular when the style is
> >different.
> >
> >There are also possibly some icons than may have non compatatble licences
> >in there. I'm not aware of the original license of the icons but as most
> >icons have been blacked out I assume that it was a non compatible one.
> >
> >Here are some of the non blacked out ones. I may of missed some.
> >
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/divider_vertical.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more.png
> >./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more2.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead_light.png
> >./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead.png
> >
> >Easy solution is to black out these files - assuming they have an
> >incompatible licence that is.
> >
> >A minor issue may exist with the binary file PortraitMode.psd. Does this
> >need to be a photoshop file or can it be converted to a different format?
> >If not are we OK with photoshop files in the repo?
> >
> >I'll also note that these issues could of been fixed before bringing it
> >to the incubator if the Flex PMC rather than a single person had been
> >involved in grant process.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
> >
> >1 https://github.com/monkeypunch3/Radii8/tree/ApacheFlexRelease1.0
> >2. http://pastebin.com/b5zPNGWF
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Good questions, I have asked the grantor about that one source file.
Maybe incubator folks with more experience can help answer these questions.
1) Regarding the package matching the grant. The code base granted was
not going to pass IP clearance. It needed headers and a proper LICENSE
and NOTICE. I was given authority by the grantor to update headers. I
took the granted software, added headers, threw out a few files (with the
grantor's permission) I found while doing so that would not pass IP
clearance and presented that package for review. Folks with more
experience: is this a correct procedure or should I have proceeded some
other way?
2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial (">" and
">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc). My scanners did not
pick up any copyright notices in those files. Folks with more experience:
Does the grantor need to provide proof-positive in order to get clearance,
or do we trust the provenance if there is no evidence to the contrary?
3) Is there a restriction agains PSD files? We have some checked into SVN
for our website already.
4) Is the grantor of a code base required to do pre-donation scrubbing in
public? Every Adobe donation I worked on was scrubbed internally then a
grant was submitted and a package submitted for IP clearance. I would
think many grantors would not want to have the scrub public as early
scrubs could end up naming names or discovering potentially embarrassing
mis-use of IP.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 8/21/14 8:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Mostly good but -1 (binding) as it still needs a little more clean up
>
>First off the code in bundle for IP clearance doesn't match what is
>recorded in the grant. The grant specifies this [1]. Not sure if this is
>a major issue or not but I expected them to be the same.
>
>While the Github repo only has one user, some of the code varies in style
>which may indicate that the code came from multiple people/sources and is
>of unknown licence. For example concatenateMetaDataXMLItems in
>ClasSUtils.as in com.flexcapacitor.utils. A quick google search turns up
>the same code here [2] which a) predates the code being in the github
>repo and may of been where the code may of came from. Of course not easy
>to tell but this at least needs confirmation that this is not an issue.
>I notice that this file may incorrectly have an Apache licence header but
>they depends on the license of the code in question. In the same file I
>also see isSimple which looks like it was copied from the Flex SDK (not
>an issue just an observation) but could also indicate that source in this
>file has come from various different places. I only checked a couple of
>methods in that file and only a few likely files so there may be other
>files/methods with similar issues in the donation.
>
>Solution is to get the donor to double check that all code was written by
>then and/or has a compatible licence, in particular when the style is
>different.
>
>There are also possibly some icons than may have non compatatble licences
>in there. I'm not aware of the original license of the icons but as most
>icons have been blacked out I assume that it was a non compatible one.
>
>Here are some of the non blacked out ones. I may of missed some.
>
>./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure.png
>./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
>./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/divider_vertical.png
>./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
>./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more.png
>./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more2.png
>./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead_light.png
>./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead.png
>
>Easy solution is to black out these files - assuming they have an
>incompatible licence that is.
>
>A minor issue may exist with the binary file PortraitMode.psd. Does this
>need to be a photoshop file or can it be converted to a different format?
>If not are we OK with photoshop files in the repo?
>
>I'll also note that these issues could of been fixed before bringing it
>to the incubator if the Flex PMC rather than a single person had been
>involved in grant process.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1 https://github.com/monkeypunch3/Radii8/tree/ApacheFlexRelease1.0
>2. http://pastebin.com/b5zPNGWF
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Radii8 for Apache Flex
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Mostly good but -1 (binding) as it still needs a little more clean up
First off the code in bundle for IP clearance doesn't match what is recorded in the grant. The grant specifies this [1]. Not sure if this is a major issue or not but I expected them to be the same.
While the Github repo only has one user, some of the code varies in style which may indicate that the code came from multiple people/sources and is of unknown licence. For example concatenateMetaDataXMLItems in ClasSUtils.as in com.flexcapacitor.utils. A quick google search turns up the same code here [2] which a) predates the code being in the github repo and may of been where the code may of came from. Of course not easy to tell but this at least needs confirmation that this is not an issue. I notice that this file may incorrectly have an Apache licence header but they depends on the license of the code in question. In the same file I also see isSimple which looks like it was copied from the Flex SDK (not an issue just an observation) but could also indicate that source in this file has come from various different places. I only checked a couple of methods in that file and only a few likely files so there may be other files/methods with similar issues in the donation.
Solution is to get the donor to double check that all code was written by then and/or has a compatible licence, in particular when the style is different.
There are also possibly some icons than may have non compatatble licences in there. I'm not aware of the original license of the icons but as most icons have been blacked out I assume that it was a non compatible one.
Here are some of the non blacked out ones. I may of missed some.
./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure.png
./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/divider_vertical.png
./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/down_disclosure2.png
./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more.png
./Radii8Remote/src/assets/icons/more2.png
./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead_light.png
./Radii8LibraryAssets/src/assets/icons/effects/playhead.png
Easy solution is to black out these files - assuming they have an incompatible licence that is.
A minor issue may exist with the binary file PortraitMode.psd. Does this need to be a photoshop file or can it be converted to a different format? If not are we OK with photoshop files in the repo?
I'll also note that these issues could of been fixed before bringing it to the incubator if the Flex PMC rather than a single person had been involved in grant process.
Thanks,
Justin
1 https://github.com/monkeypunch3/Radii8/tree/ApacheFlexRelease1.0
2. http://pastebin.com/b5zPNGWF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org