You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2012/11/02 05:08:05 UTC
[MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Hi Mentors,
If you’ve been following the vote thread on general@incubator, I think they’ve found an error in the headers of the MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as files. Is this a release blocker, and if so, can you also advise on whether other issues they’ve found need to be addressed as well?
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...if those files come from
>> an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
>> license headers.
>>
> So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
Hard to argue against "release blocker" - we're pretending that this
code is ours but it's not.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> It made it into release/temp and was being flagged in the rat report. I
> didn't check the actual gz file.
>
This is not possible unless the build.xml has changed to include temp.p12
in the source kit in the first place.
>
> If I am following what you saying, rather then excluding it from the kit,
> it should not be copied to release/temp and that would fix the rat issue
> and ensure it isn't packaged.
No, I mean that the temp.p12 should be excluded from the kit when you do
"ant release"
I picked up your latest changes and tried it again and I am not able to
reproduce what you are seeing.
Can you please send me a clear set of steps to reproduce?
> Carol
>
> On 11/2/12 3 :44PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Carol,
> >
> >The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
> >build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
> > We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
> >a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude
> >temp.p12
> >
> >And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
> >
> >Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
> >local "ant build".
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Om,
> >>
> >> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
> >> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Carol,
> >> >
> >> >Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
> >> >much
> >> >all the issues.
> >> >
> >> >Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
> >> >Or
> >> >should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Om
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at
> >>root
> >> >>but
> >> >>
> >> >>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
> >> >>>root
> >> >>> when we packaged everything.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
> >> >> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
> >> >>
> >> >> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
> >> >> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Om
> >> >>
> >> >> [1]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
> >> >>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Yes, double digit RCs!
(I told you so, Om, you optimist ;-))
EdB
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No worries, we will put up a new RC soon!
>
> Thanks,
> Om
> On Nov 2, 2012 2:56 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > I think all of the issues are resolved. I think we have to vote within
> > the
> > > podling before restarting the vote on general@incubator. It might be
> a
> > good
> > > idea for you to close the vote thread on general by listing the issues
> we
> > > are addressing and that we'll be back.
> >
> > I hate to make you run another RC, but I agree that this is the best
> > approach.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
No worries, we will put up a new RC soon!
Thanks,
Om
On Nov 2, 2012 2:56 PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > I think all of the issues are resolved. I think we have to vote within
> the
> > podling before restarting the vote on general@incubator. It might be a
> good
> > idea for you to close the vote thread on general by listing the issues we
> > are addressing and that we'll be back.
>
> I hate to make you run another RC, but I agree that this is the best
> approach.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I think all of the issues are resolved. I think we have to vote within the
> podling before restarting the vote on general@incubator. It might be a good
> idea for you to close the vote thread on general by listing the issues we
> are addressing and that we'll be back.
I hate to make you run another RC, but I agree that this is the best approach.
Thanks,
Greg
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I think all of the issues are resolved. I think we have to vote within the
podling before restarting the vote on general@incubator. It might be a good
idea for you to close the vote thread on general by listing the issues we
are addressing and that we'll be back.
On 11/2/12 1:27 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aah that makes sense. Great catch!
>
> Om
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Om,
>>
>> The file on the kit was temp.12 not temp.p12. The problem was due to a
>> typo in the KEYSTORE property value. Once I fixed the typo, you are
>> correct that temp.p12 is not copied to staging dir, release/temp. The RAT
>> report is now clean.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 11/2/12 3 :44PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Carol,
>>>
>>> The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
>>> build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
>>> We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
>>> a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude
>>> temp.p12
>>>
>>> And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
>>>
>>> Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
>>> local "ant build".
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Om,
>>>>
>>>> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
>>>> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Carol,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
>>>>> much
>>>>> all the issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
>>>>> Or
>>>>> should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Om
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at
>>>> root
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
>>>>>>> root
>>>>>>> when we packaged everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
>>>>>> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
>>>>>> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Om
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
>>>>>> x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Aah that makes sense. Great catch!
Om
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Om,
>
> The file on the kit was temp.12 not temp.p12. The problem was due to a
> typo in the KEYSTORE property value. Once I fixed the typo, you are
> correct that temp.p12 is not copied to staging dir, release/temp. The RAT
> report is now clean.
>
> Carol
>
> On 11/2/12 3 :44PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Carol,
> >
> >The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
> >build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
> > We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
> >a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude
> >temp.p12
> >
> >And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
> >
> >Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
> >local "ant build".
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Om,
> >>
> >> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
> >> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Carol,
> >> >
> >> >Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
> >> >much
> >> >all the issues.
> >> >
> >> >Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
> >> >Or
> >> >should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Om
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at
> >>root
> >> >>but
> >> >>
> >> >>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
> >> >>>root
> >> >>> when we packaged everything.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
> >> >> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
> >> >>
> >> >> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
> >> >> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Om
> >> >>
> >> >> [1]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
> >> >>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
It made it into release/temp and was being flagged in the rat report. I
didn't check the actual gz file.
If I am following what you saying, rather then excluding it from the kit,
it should not be copied to release/temp and that would fix the rat issue
and ensure it isn't packaged.
Carol
On 11/2/12 3 :44PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Carol,
>
>The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
>build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
> We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
>a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude
>temp.p12
>
>And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
>
>Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
>local "ant build".
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Om,
>>
>> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
>> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Carol,
>> >
>> >Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
>> >much
>> >all the issues.
>> >
>> >Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
>> >Or
>> >should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at
>>root
>> >>but
>> >>
>> >>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
>> >>>root
>> >>> when we packaged everything.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
>> >> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
>> >>
>> >> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
>> >> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Om
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
>> >>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
Om,
The file on the kit was temp.12 not temp.p12. The problem was due to a
typo in the KEYSTORE property value. Once I fixed the typo, you are
correct that temp.p12 is not copied to staging dir, release/temp. The RAT
report is now clean.
Carol
On 11/2/12 3 :44PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Carol,
>
>The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
>build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
> We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
>a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude
>temp.p12
>
>And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
>
>Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
>local "ant build".
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Om,
>>
>> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
>> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Carol,
>> >
>> >Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
>> >much
>> >all the issues.
>> >
>> >Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
>> >Or
>> >should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at
>>root
>> >>but
>> >>
>> >>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
>> >>>root
>> >>> when we packaged everything.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
>> >> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
>> >>
>> >> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
>> >> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Om
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
>> >>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Carol,
The binary file temp.p12 is created during a local build process (ant
build). For a release build (ant release), we use a different .p12 file.
We also exclude the temp.p12 from being packaged in the source kit. Take
a look at the "source-package" target in build.xml where we exclude temp.p12
And I dont see temp.p12 on SVN as well.
Are you sure this is not something that was created as a result of your
local "ant build".
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Om,
>
> There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
> removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
>
> Carol
>
> On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Carol,
> >
> >Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
> >much
> >all the issues.
> >
> >Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
> >Or
> >should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root
> >>but
> >>
> >>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
> >>>root
> >>> when we packaged everything.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
> >> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
> >>
> >> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
> >> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
> >>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
> >>
>
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
Om,
There is a binary in the kit that shouldn't be there. I think it can be
removed but I wanted you or Erik to verify.
Carol
On 11/2/12 2 :47PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Carol,
>
>Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty
>much
>all the issues.
>
>Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC?
>Or
>should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root
>>but
>>
>>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to
>>>root
>>> when we packaged everything.
>>>
>>>
>> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
>> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
>>
>> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
>> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> [1]
>>
>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-fle
>>x-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
>>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Carol,
Are you planning on more changes? It looks like you have fixed pretty much
all the issues.
Bertrand, when we cut the next RC, can we take it directly to the IPMC? Or
should it go through a voting round on this list as usual (I hope not!)
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
>
>> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root
>> when we packaged everything.
>>
>>
> As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
> structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
>
> I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
> release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-flex-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root
> when we packaged everything.
>
>
As I mentioned on general@i.a.o, I have fixed this by modifying the
structure of the RC9 tag. Please take a look at [1]
I dont think we need to modify the directory structure in trunk for a
release. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Om
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/tags/apache-flex-sdk-installer-1.0.8-RC9/
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
> are "release blockers"
>
> 1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
> 2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
> 3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
> 4. incorrect path to the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file...
> when we packaged everything....
As I said, IMO 1. is a blocker, and if another release is cut the
other issues can be easily fixed as well, except maybe
> ...5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
> in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root...
IMO it's not uncommon for build systems to move or generate those
files, so I wouldn't bother unless it's very simple to fix.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>... It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open Sans
>> fonts, at least according to this [1].
>> The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google Corporation
>> but the license is Apache v2.
>>
>> I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE file
>> since the general Apache license applies to them....
I agree with that.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...Bertrand, do we need to mention in the LICENSE file that the Open-Sans font
> we got from Google WebFonts is under Apache license? Or are Apache licensed
> items never mentioned in LICENSE?...
They do not need to be mentioned - IMO it's good to have a list of
third-party dependencies somewhere, if only to be able to check them
when reviewing a release, but that's not a requirement for Apache
releases AFAIK.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/2/12 8:29 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another
> pass on the changes.
>
> Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should
> be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there.
> It is called temp.12. I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should
> remove it from the kit.
Carol, can you modify the comment in the RAT excludes to say that the
license is Modified BSD (which is Category A), not Adobe (which is not
Apache-compatible). Adobe is just the copyright holder. Modified BSD is a
template where you substitute in the copyright holder's name.
>> That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide. If
>> a
>> third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
>> need mention in LICENSE. And does the copyright go some place for
>> binaries
>> like a .TTF file?
Bertrand, do we need to mention in the LICENSE file that the Open-Sans font
we got from Google WebFonts is under Apache license? Or are Apache licensed
items never mentioned in LICENSE?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
I made some changes before I read this email [1] so we might need another
pass on the changes.
Now that I've cleaned up the RAT report and excluded binaries which should
be excluded I see there is a binary in the kit which should not be there.
It is called temp.12. I believe it can be generated so Om/Erik should
remove it from the kit.
Carol
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1405005&view=rev
On 11/2/12 11 :03AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of
>>>them
>>> are "release blockers"
>>>
>>> 1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
>>> 2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
>>> 3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
>>
>> This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans.
>>
>> It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open
>>Sans
>> fonts, at least according to this [1].
>> The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google
>>Corporation
>> but the license is Apache v2.
>>
>> I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE
>>file
>> since the general Apache license applies to them.
>>
>That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide. If
>a
>third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
>need mention in LICENSE. And does the copyright go some place for
>binaries
>like a .TTF file?
>
>--
>Alex Harui
>Flex SDK Team
>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/2/12 7:46 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
>> are "release blockers"
>>
>> 1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
>> 2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
>> 3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
>
> This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans.
>
> It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open Sans
> fonts, at least according to this [1].
> The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google Corporation
> but the license is Apache v2.
>
> I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE file
> since the general Apache license applies to them.
>
That isn't clear to me so it would be great if Bertrand could decide. If a
third-party entity is Apache Licensed but is an external to Apache does it
need mention in LICENSE. And does the copyright go some place for binaries
like a .TTF file?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 11/2/12 10 :28AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
>are "release blockers"
>
>1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
>2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
>3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
This should have said open-sans rather than open_sans.
It looks like the Apache License, version 2.0 is correct for the Open Sans
fonts, at least according to this [1].
The copyright is Digitized data copyright © 2010-2011, Google Corporation
but the license is Apache v2.
I think that means we don't have to call the fonts out in the LICENSE file
since the general Apache license applies to them.
Carol
[1] http://www.google.com/webfonts/attribution
>4. incorrect path to the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
>5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
>in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root
>when we packaged everything.
>
>The issues that have been resolved are:
>
>1. Om has published his public key
>2. EOL at EOF not a blocker
>
>Carol
>
>On 11/2/12 10 :11AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it
>>>>had
>>>> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license
>>>>headers...
>>>> How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
>>>
>>> RAT takes an exclusion list for such cases - if those files come from
>>> an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
>>> license headers.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
>>
>>--
>>Alex Harui
>>Flex SDK Team
>>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
I think there were a few issues raised and we need to know if any of them
are "release blockers"
1. incorrect headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
2. incorrect path to MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as in the LICENSE file
3. incorrect license for the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
4. incorrect path to the open_sans fonts in the LICENSE file
5. in the distro the NOTICE, LICENSE and DISCLAIMER files are at root but
in svn they are under the installer directory - we pulled them up to root
when we packaged everything.
The issues that have been resolved are:
1. Om has published his public key
2. EOL at EOF not a blocker
Carol
On 11/2/12 10 :11AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>wrote:
>>> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it had
>>> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license
>>>headers...
>>> How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
>>
>> RAT takes an exclusion list for such cases - if those files come from
>> an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
>> license headers.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
>
>--
>Alex Harui
>Flex SDK Team
>Adobe Systems, Inc.
>http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/2/12 7:04 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it had
>> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license headers...
>> How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
>
> RAT takes an exclusion list for such cases - if those files come from
> an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
> license headers.
>
> -Bertrand
So, "release blocker" or "ok" because we are incubating?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it had
> something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license headers...
> How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
RAT takes an exclusion list for such cases - if those files come from
an external project, Alex is right that we should have kept their
license headers.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Not sure who suggested the should be switched, but I recall that it had
something to do with RAT complaining about non-Apache license headers...
How can we satisfy both requirements (original license vs. RAT)?
EdB
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/2/12 4:12 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> ...If you¹ve been following the vote thread on general@incubator, I
> think
> >> they¹ve found an error in the headers of
> >> the MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as files. Is this a release blocker, and
> if so,
> >> can you also advise on whether
> >> other issues they¹ve found need to be addressed as well?...
> >
> > No idea what you're talking about, which message exactly, URL?
> >
> > I have commented on the end-of-lines and LICENSE things at
> > http://markmail.org/thread/yx263i737qtfbszf
> >
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Thanks for jumping on this thread. I am referring to same thread and the
> questions from Alexei, specifically this one:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201211.mbox/%3cCA
> Gc_3jH48sBftuF9yiCzt+KhP+oH0Vt5_A9XSWoUwGtuiNVxSA@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> The MD5Stream and IntUtil files are technically third-party. Adobe has not
> donated these files. They have Modified BSD licenses and came from
> googlecode. So, we can include them in our release, but I don't think we
> should have swapped their BSD headers out for Apache headers.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/2/12 4:12 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> ...If you¹ve been following the vote thread on general@incubator, I think
>> they¹ve found an error in the headers of
>> the MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as files. Is this a release blocker, and if so,
>> can you also advise on whether
>> other issues they¹ve found need to be addressed as well?...
>
> No idea what you're talking about, which message exactly, URL?
>
> I have commented on the end-of-lines and LICENSE things at
> http://markmail.org/thread/yx263i737qtfbszf
>
Hi Bertrand,
Thanks for jumping on this thread. I am referring to same thread and the
questions from Alexei, specifically this one:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201211.mbox/%3cCA
Gc_3jH48sBftuF9yiCzt+KhP+oH0Vt5_A9XSWoUwGtuiNVxSA@mail.gmail.com%3e
The MD5Stream and IntUtil files are technically third-party. Adobe has not
donated these files. They have Modified BSD licenses and came from
googlecode. So, we can include them in our release, but I don't think we
should have swapped their BSD headers out for Apache headers.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTORS] InstallApacheFlex RC9 Third-Party Licensing
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...If you’ve been following the vote thread on general@incubator, I think they’ve found an error in the headers of
> the MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as files. Is this a release blocker, and if so, can you also advise on whether
> other issues they’ve found need to be addressed as well?...
No idea what you're talking about, which message exactly, URL?
I have commented on the end-of-lines and LICENSE things at
http://markmail.org/thread/yx263i737qtfbszf
-Bertrand