[Installer] legal review

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Hi,

Would the legal eagles mind doing an initial review of the legal docs
for the Installer?

Thanks,

EdB



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [Installer] legal review

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Why wait? If (when) we add as3httpblientlib, it will be at most one
addition to one file.

What I'm hoping for is to have a parallel track where all other legal
stuff that you can possibly come up with (binaries, deep-nested
licenses etc.) is checked and verified.

There is no need to wait for an RC or even the release branch to get
this stuff out of the way; we want the release branch and surrounding
discussion(s) to be about the code and it's stability, and the RC
really only about the correctness of the hashes and sigs.

EdB


On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Can we wait to see if we integrate as3httpclient?  That will impact the
> legal docs.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 2/8/15, 9:21 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Would the legal eagles mind doing an initial review of the legal docs
>>for the Installer?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>EdB
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>>T. 06-51952295
>>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [Installer] legal review

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

Can we wait to see if we integrate as3httpclient?  That will impact the
legal docs.

-Alex

On 2/8/15, 9:21 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Would the legal eagles mind doing an initial review of the legal docs
>for the Installer?
>
>Thanks,
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>-- 
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [Installer] legal review

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

Hi,

> In this particular case, I, as an Adobe employee, re-licensed the code and
> donated it to Apache.

With the permission / blessing of Adobe legal department? Again I don't think there is an issue here, but just asking.

> We only download the binary SWC from as3 commons zip and don’t bundle the
> full SWC.

The LICENSE/NOTICE must reflect what is bundled but again in this case it's not a major issue.

As I stated I don't think what we currently have is 100% correct, but it's probably good enough and given the licenses incolved there's little or no legal risk involved to the project so there's no issue in making a release with the current LICENSE/NOTICE. Unless anyone thinks otherwise?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [Installer] legal review

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

I finally found time to look at this.

On 2/8/15, 10:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>From a quick look that are OK, but are probably not 100% correct, but IMO
>it's not a licensing error on our part and not a blocker.
>
>IMO the (minor) issues are:
>1. Binary bundles as3 commons which is not mentioned in license/notice.
>(It's Apache licensed).
>2. We have stuff in LICENSE that should probably go in NOTICE and we
>don't mention the copyright owner.


>3. We could mention that the MD5 code was originally BSD licensed when
>it's header was replaced.

In this particular case, I, as an Adobe employee, re-licensed the code and
donated it to Apache.  Normally there would be an issue about re-licensing
BSD code, but this is an exception.  AIUI, no need to mention the prior
licensing any more than we mention the prior licensing of the other code
from Adobe.

>
>The issue re 1 + 2 is that the Apache software we're bundling is missing
>(the required) NOTICE file. All Apache licensed software should have a
>minimal NOTICE file with the copyright owner. This normally would then be
>copied into our NOTICE file but as it was missing we've added them to
>LICENSE and miss out mentioning the copyright owner. The font file is
>binary and it's not immediately obvious it's Apache licensed so important
>IMO that should stay.

I’m not sure what the right answer is.  It would be more obvious if the
Installer’s binary artifact was a compressed artifact, but given it is a
DMG or EXE, I’m not sure how to package a LICENSE and NOTICE in it in a
way the consumer can easily access it, so I’m not sure what rules apply.

We only download the binary SWC from as3 commons zip and don’t bundle the
full SWC.  It is a library used by the linker.  The SWC is not deployed in
the binary.  It isn’t clear that we “moved” any copyrights, so I’m not
sure that the LICENSE should change.

IMO, we’re ok as it is, but if someone wants to try to figure out the
recommended way to handle DMG and EXE files and make the required build
changes, I would support their effort.

Since PMC members wrote AS3 Commons, they can speak up if they want more
attribution.

-Alex

Re: [Installer] legal review

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

Hi,

From a quick look that are OK, but are probably not 100% correct, but IMO it's not a licensing error on our part and not a blocker.

IMO the (minor) issues are:
1. Binary bundles as3 commons which is not mentioned in license/notice. (It's Apache licensed).
2. We have stuff in LICENSE that should probably go in NOTICE and we don't mention the copyright owner.
3. We could mention that the MD5 code was originally BSD licensed when it's header was replaced.

The issue re 1 + 2 is that the Apache software we're bundling is missing (the required) NOTICE file. All Apache licensed software should have a minimal NOTICE file with the copyright owner. This normally would then be copied into our NOTICE file but as it was missing we've added them to LICENSE and miss out mentioning the copyright owner. The font file is binary and it's not immediately obvious it's Apache licensed so important IMO that should stay.

End of the day everything (except perhaps parts of one file) is Apache licensed so users have the same rights and can do what the Apache license allows. Who originally wrote it /owns the code copyright is just nice to know extra information.

Thanks,
Justin