You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> on 2014/09/19 18:50:06 UTC
Re: List of dependencies
Either way, if they have been available, unrestricted, for a prolonged
period, without Adobe actively contesting the right of Velo - or anyone
else - to distribute them, then they are de facto in the public domain.
EdB
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Which jars are you talking about? Are you sure they are in Maven Central?
>
> The issue is that back in the day, Flex management was more interested in
> growing the market for Flex than in making sure all of the licensing and
> trademark rules were being followed. They may or may not have given Velo
> permission, and if they did, may not have checked with Adobe Legal first,
> and if they didn't give permission, may not have cared that Velo posted
> them.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 9/19/14 12:32 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >
> >today I'll be working hard on integrating the Mavenizer into Flexmojos.
> >While this will resolve the hard dependency on Air and Flash libraries
> >making it possible for us to release Apache Flex in Maven, there still
> >are some dependencies to third party libs. For example the Font handling
> >stuff ...
> >
> >
> >Now I just had the idea that Velo did have an official permit to release
> >earlier versions of Adobe Flex and with this I bet some libs were
> >released that we still need to manually download. I doubt these have
> >changed in the last years. So how about referencing these libs that are
> >already in Maven Central? Cause I think without this we wouldn't be able
> >to officially release Flex as Maven?
> >
> >
> >Chris
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
AW: List of dependencies
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I hate this discussion fragmentation)
I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air artifacts, but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about one font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was an assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often and I was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo deployed back in the old days when he still did that.
>From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from Adobe and Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the stuff. At first I was thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air artifacts at Sonatype and us releasing our stuff at Apache with both ending up in Maven central. But Sonatype explained that the permit had expired and Adobe didn't want to renew it. So that door is closed.
I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal and the feature seems to be working nicely.
Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open repo:
https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compiler~afe~~~
Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash so I was thinking about
referencing this artifact for example: https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/content/com/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar
My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling the same way. I would become more and more a hack.
Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we still rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start finding solutions to where to get them from or how to make the build-system cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check if afe is present only if font encoding is being used in the project and eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this for every external and optional dependency.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <om...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: List of dependencies
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Om,
>
> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them with
> the search facility. Can you post the URLs?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Here is what I found:
http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe
http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos
Chris can probably give you the correct list.
Thanks,
Om
> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is
> >>the
> >> >best way to move forward?
> >> >
> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for
> >>us,
> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe
> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA
> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense
> >>I
> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are
> >>under
> >> open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do
> >>that.
> >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe
> >> Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without
> >> explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all
> >>of
> >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
> >>
> >>
> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are
> >today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI
> >action.
> >
> >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven,
> >>so
> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
> >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If
> >>I
> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Fair enough :-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Om,
>
> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them with
> the search facility. Can you post the URLs?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Here is what I found:
http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe
http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos
Chris can probably give you the correct list.
Thanks,
Om
> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is
> >>the
> >> >best way to move forward?
> >> >
> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for
> >>us,
> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe
> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA
> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense
> >>I
> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are
> >>under
> >> open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do
> >>that.
> >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe
> >> Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without
> >> explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all
> >>of
> >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
> >>
> >>
> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are
> >today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI
> >action.
> >
> >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven,
> >>so
> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
> >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If
> >>I
> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Fair enough :-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Om,
Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them with
the search facility. Can you post the URLs?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is
>>the
>> >best way to move forward?
>> >
>> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for
>>us,
>> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
>> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe
>> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA
>> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense
>>I
>> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are
>>under
>> open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do
>>that.
>> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe
>> Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without
>> explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all
>>of
>> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
>>
>>
>I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are
>today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI
>action.
>
>Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others?
>
>
>> >
>> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven,
>>so
>> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
>> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If
>>I
>> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
>>
>>
>>
>Fair enough :-)
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is the
> >best way to move forward?
> >
> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for us,
> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe
> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA
> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense I
> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are under
> open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do that.
> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe
> Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without
> explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all of
> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
>
>
I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they are
today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license agreement UI
action.
Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others?
> >
> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven, so
> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If I
> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
>
>
>
Fair enough :-)
Thanks,
Om
> -Alex
>
>
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is the
>best way to move forward?
>
>If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for us,
>regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked Adobe
Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the Adobe EULA
(via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The sense I
got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there are under
open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven extension to do that.
If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask Adobe
Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded without
explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me to remove all of
them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok.
>
>I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven, so
>this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. If I
had, I probably wouldn't have a blog.
-Alex
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/19/14 10:29 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >The name Velo came up, so it¹s safe to say that it¹s been many years. And
> >the internet is not a "remote gallery² (but I like your analogy, it¹s a
> >clever trick ;-)).
> I can't speak for my fellow Adobe colleagues, but Maven Central was
> effectively a remote gallery to me. I had no idea it existed and you
> could get stuff from there.
>
> >They have been freely available to the only interested
> >audience, so it¹s fair to conclude that the entire public has had access
> >for a long time -> public domain.
> A quick internet search indicated that "prolonged period" is 95 years
> before copyright protection runs out and works go into the public domain.
> Do you know it to be different for software?
>
>
Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what is the
best way to move forward?
If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good enough for us,
regardless of what happened internally at Adobe?
Or can we get Adobe to upload a version of those files themselves into
Maven Central? They are already available for download publicly. All
their licenses would remain intact.
I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on Maven, so
this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing.
Thanks,
Om
> -Alex
>
>
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/19/14 10:29 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>The name Velo came up, so it¹s safe to say that it¹s been many years. And
>the internet is not a "remote gallery² (but I like your analogy, it¹s a
>clever trick ;-)).
I can't speak for my fellow Adobe colleagues, but Maven Central was
effectively a remote gallery to me. I had no idea it existed and you
could get stuff from there.
>They have been freely available to the only interested
>audience, so it¹s fair to conclude that the entire public has had access
>for a long time -> public domain.
A quick internet search indicated that "prolonged period" is 95 years
before copyright protection runs out and works go into the public domain.
Do you know it to be different for software?
-Alex
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
> >Either way, if they have been available, unrestricted, for a prolonged
> >period, without Adobe actively contesting the right of Velo - or anyone
> >else - to distribute them, then they are de facto in the public domain.
Hey, I thought you didn't like this legal stuff ;-). I'm not saying you
> are wrong, but how long is the "prolonged period"? Also, wouldn't this be
> like a movie script where someone steals some artwork and displays it in a
> public but remote gallery for a "prolonged period" then claims it is
> public domain?
>
As I’m PMC again, it is my interpretation of the Apache Way that I have to
“like” it. As long as we keep it brief ;-)
The name Velo came up, so it’s safe to say that it’s been many years. And
the internet is not a "remote gallery” (but I like your analogy, it’s a
clever trick ;-)). They have been freely available to the only interested
audience, so it’s fair to conclude that the entire public has had access
for a long time -> public domain.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: List of dependencies
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/19/14 9:50 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>Either way, if they have been available, unrestricted, for a prolonged
>period, without Adobe actively contesting the right of Velo - or anyone
>else - to distribute them, then they are de facto in the public domain.
Hey, I thought you didn't like this legal stuff ;-). I'm not saying you
are wrong, but how long is the "prolonged period"? Also, wouldn't this be
like a movie script where someone steals some artwork and displays it in a
public but remote gallery for a "prolonged period" then claims it is
public domain?
-Alex