You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> on 2012/03/22 22:50:56 UTC
[MENTOR] release package questions
Hi,
Traditionally the Flex SDK has been distributed as a zip file which contains both the source and the binaries.
I read that every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and tools and that Apache allows a binary package as a convenience to users that may not want to build the sources.
I took a look at 3 or 4 existing Apache projects and their downloads seemed to contain both sources and binaries. For one project I looked at, the only difference I could tell was that the binary package contained documentation.
My questions are:
* Is there suppose to be one package with just source and another package with the results of the build or can they be combined?
* Our build downloads some libraries which don't have compatible licenses to the Apache license. Can we distribute binaries built with these libraries?
Carol
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...This is what I see in the LICENSE file from the download of
> javacc-5.0.tar.gz. Is this a BSD license?..
Yes, AFAICS that's the 3-clause license as shown at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
-Bertrand
>
> Copyright (c) 2006, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>
> * 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.
> * Neither the name of the Sun Microsystems, Inc. nor the names of its
> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
> AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
> INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
> CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
> ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
> THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Left Right <ol...@gmail.com>.
I'm absolutely not an expert in this field, but here's what I was thinking
(sorry, if it doesn't make sense): What if it was possible to distribute
SDK and the framework as two separate packages? That would spare the
trouble of OSMF and TLF inclusion for the base (SDK) package? Additionally,
there's Tamarin that can produce playerglobal.swc (of course, it's not what
you want, but read on), I think it shouldn't be a technical problem to
create "interfaces" i.e. classes mirroring the actual Flash Player classes
with methods marked as "native" and compile an SWC from it using Tamarin -
that would require some reverse engineering + quite a bit of a handwork,
but from the first glance may be possible... Worst case, the binary package
may come with the "fake" sources that technically reflect the classes built
into Flash player. I think this is how Flash Develop used to be distributed
some time ago - they had all the AS3 classes written themselves, the
interfaces, that is.
Or does this sound hectic? :)
Best.
Oleg
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 3/23/12 7:18 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> ...We have a list of third-party libraries. As far as I can tell the last
>> two in the list might be okay but the rest are not....
>>
>> playerglobal.swc - Adobe - this is Flash
>> airglobal.swc - Adobe - this is AIR
>> OSMF (Open Source Media Framework) - Adobe opensource
>> TLF (Text Layout Format) - Adobe opensource
>
> For the above, best might be work with Adobe to get a license that
> allows Flex to redistribute them.
Does that license have to be Category A or B or can it be proprietary but
give the rights to re-distribute?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 3/23/12 10 :18AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> javacc (Sun) - parser generator used by the compiler
>
>I just downloaded 5.0 from http://javacc.java.net/, that's BSD which is
>ok.
>Older versions might be different IIRC.
This is what I see in the LICENSE file from the download of
javacc-5.0.tar.gz. Is this a BSD license?
Copyright (c) 2006, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* 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.
* Neither the name of the Sun Microsystems, Inc. nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...We have a list of third-party libraries. As far as I can tell the last
> two in the list might be okay but the rest are not....
>
> playerglobal.swc - Adobe - this is Flash
> airglobal.swc - Adobe - this is AIR
> OSMF (Open Source Media Framework) - Adobe opensource
> TLF (Text Layout Format) - Adobe opensource
For the above, best might be work with Adobe to get a license that
allows Flex to redistribute them.
> javacc (Sun) - parser generator used by the compiler
I just downloaded 5.0 from http://javacc.java.net/, that's BSD which is ok.
Older versions might be different IIRC.
>
> saxon (MPL which might be reciprocal license)
> swfobject (MIT which might be authorized license)
MPL is ok with restrictions, see http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
MIT is ok.
>
> The build currently downloads each of these from external sites and uses
> them. There is not any notification from the build scripts that this is
> being done....
Ok, that might be needed for the above Adobe stuff depending on what
the terms are (I didn't check).
>
> It seems like, even if we get the build straightened out, we will not be
> able to distribute a binary package...
>From the Above, I say only the Adobe stuff needs to be clarified.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 3/23/12 5 :38AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi Carol,
>
>On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>> ...I read that every ASF release must contain a source package, which
>>must be sufficient for a
>> user to build and test the release provided they have access to the
>>appropriate platform and tools
>> and that Apache allows a binary package as a convenience to users that
>>may not want to build the sources....
>
>That's correct, only the source releases are official releases,
>binaries are just a convenience.
>
>> ... * Is there suppose to be one package with just source and another
>>package with the results of the build or can they be combined?...
>
>A source-only package is required, that's what the (P)PMC votes on.
>
>If a binary package is distributed as well, it can contain the sources
>as a convenience but that won't be the official release so it's
>probably better to avoid that.
>
>> ...Our build downloads some libraries which don't have compatible
>>licenses to the Apache license.
>> Can we distribute binaries built with these libraries?...
>
>No, we can only distribute code with dependencies that are ok
>according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
>
>If the Flex code has dependencies with incompatible licenses, those
>must be optional, and users must be warned if the build downloads them
>automatically.
I just found and read http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html but I am
going to need some help figuring this all out.
We have a list of third-party libraries. As far as I can tell the last
two in the list might be okay but the rest are not.
The only ones that might be able to be considered as add-on/optional are
OSMF and swfobject. All the others are "system requirements" in Apache
terms and required to build anything in Flex.
playerglobal.swc - Adobe - this is Flash
airglobal.swc - Adobe - this is AIR
OSMF (Open Source Media Framework) - Adobe opensource
TLF (Text Layout Format) - Adobe opensource
javacc (Sun) - parser generator used by the compiler
saxon (MPL which might be reciprocal license)
swfobject (MIT which might be authorized license)
The build currently downloads each of these from external sites and uses
them. There is not any notification from the build scripts that this is
being done.
It seems like, even if we get the build straightened out, we will not be
able to distribute a binary package.
How do you suggest I proceed?
Carol
>
>The rationale is that our releases must not put an additional burden
>on users besides the Apache Licenses - anything that introduces
>restrictions compared to that must be optional and clearly labelled as
>such.
>
>-Bertrand
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Carol,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...I read that every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a
> user to build and test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and tools
> and that Apache allows a binary package as a convenience to users that may not want to build the sources....
That's correct, only the source releases are official releases,
binaries are just a convenience.
> ... * Is there suppose to be one package with just source and another package with the results of the build or can they be combined?...
A source-only package is required, that's what the (P)PMC votes on.
If a binary package is distributed as well, it can contain the sources
as a convenience but that won't be the official release so it's
probably better to avoid that.
> ...Our build downloads some libraries which don't have compatible licenses to the Apache license.
> Can we distribute binaries built with these libraries?...
No, we can only distribute code with dependencies that are ok
according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
If the Flex code has dependencies with incompatible licenses, those
must be optional, and users must be warned if the build downloads them
automatically.
The rationale is that our releases must not put an additional burden
on users besides the Apache Licenses - anything that introduces
restrictions compared to that must be optional and clearly labelled as
such.
-Bertrand
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 3/23/12 6 :05AM, "Martin Heidegger" <mh...@leichtgewicht.at> wrote:
>On 23/03/2012 06:50, Carol Frampton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Traditionally the Flex SDK has been distributed as a zip file which
>>contains both the source and the binaries.
>>
>> I read that every ASF release must contain a source package, which must
>>be sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
>>have access to the appropriate platform and tools and that Apache allows
>>a binary package as a convenience to users that may not want to build
>>the sources.
>>
>> I took a look at 3 or 4 existing Apache projects and their downloads
>>seemed to contain both sources and binaries. For one project I looked
>>at, the only difference I could tell was that the binary package
>>contained documentation.
>>
>> My questions are:
>>
>> * Is there suppose to be one package with just source and another
>>package with the results of the build or can they be combined?
>> * Our build downloads some libraries which don't have compatible
>>licenses to the Apache license. Can we distribute binaries built with
>>these libraries?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>Hello Carol,
>
>Out of curiosity: what libraries are you talking about?
I answered your question if you read my reply to Bertrand on this same
thread.
Carol
>
>greetings
>Martin.
>out of curiosity:
Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
Posted by Martin Heidegger <mh...@leichtgewicht.at>.
On 23/03/2012 06:50, Carol Frampton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Traditionally the Flex SDK has been distributed as a zip file which contains both the source and the binaries.
>
> I read that every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and tools and that Apache allows a binary package as a convenience to users that may not want to build the sources.
>
> I took a look at 3 or 4 existing Apache projects and their downloads seemed to contain both sources and binaries. For one project I looked at, the only difference I could tell was that the binary package contained documentation.
>
> My questions are:
>
> * Is there suppose to be one package with just source and another package with the results of the build or can they be combined?
> * Our build downloads some libraries which don't have compatible licenses to the Apache license. Can we distribute binaries built with these libraries?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Hello Carol,
Out of curiosity: what libraries are you talking about?
greetings
Martin.
out of curiosity: