Great, thanks.
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Om wrote:
> Yes, we have addressed that issue. We reinstated the original license text
> for the headers in MD5Stream.as and IntU
Yes, we have addressed that issue. We reinstated the original license text
for the headers in MD5Stream.as and IntUtil.as
Thanks,
Om
On Nov 5, 2012 2:35 AM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
> Hello Om,
>
> Alex wrote,
> > After more digging, I think the issue is that IntUtil.as shouldn't have
> an Apach
Hello Om,
Alex wrote,
> After more digging, I think the issue is that IntUtil.as shouldn't have an
> Apache header. It comes from external projects under Modified BSD.
Do you plan to fix this?
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
For the record, these are issues we are fixing in the next RC:
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 t
In light of all the issues uncovered, I am closing this vote thread. We
are working on fixing the issues and will be back with a new vote thread.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> > ...If I were the RM, I woul
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> ...If I were the RM, I would add the missing EOLs at EOF and create another
> RC
I see your point about the distributed files not being *binary
identical* to the svn tag, but I personally consider source files to
be identical if diff -b (i.e. ig
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Alexei Fedotov
wrote:
> ...the question is why do you use non-standard LICENSE for the source
> release?...
It's similar to what httpd is doing - the Apache License first, then
licenses for included modules:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
On 1 November 2012 18:15, Om wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look :-) Responses inline:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:16 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 30 October 2012 20:16, Om wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the
>> Apache
>> > Flex SDK
Thanks for taking a look :-) Responses inline:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:16 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30 October 2012 20:16, Om wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the
> Apache
> > Flex SDK Installer (Incubating) AIR application.
> >
> > Th
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Hello OmPrakash,
>
> I have notices that the LICENSE file has few additions two Apache License:
>
> 1. The second entry for Apache license.
> 2. Something like BSD license.
>
> The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> I have also found the following line of code:
> > ./installer/src/InstallApacheFlex.mxml: var
> licenseWindow:AdobeLicense = new AdobeLicense();
>
> Shouldn't you use new ApacheLicense() here?
>
>
There are some dependencies w
>
> > The document at [3] in the section "Signing Basics" only seems to require
> > that the key be in the KEYS file. Om's key is there at [4].
>
> See the linked document:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html#generation-final-steps-new-key
>
>
Thanks Sebb. As I mentioned earlier, I have u
On 1 November 2012 21:05, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/1/12 1:16 PM, "sebb" wrote:
>
The key C1708693 does not appear to be available from the normal
public PGP key servers.
>>>
>>> I presume you would like Om to publish his key.
>>
>> Yes, that is required so end users can fetch it
Thank you, Alex
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/1/12 4:08 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
>
>> Thanks for explaining, I finally got Carol's point on installer.
>>
>> I still cannot fully understand the licensing. I have checked that
>> installer/src/com/adobe/utils/I
On 11/1/12 4:08 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
> Thanks for explaining, I finally got Carol's point on installer.
>
> I still cannot fully understand the licensing. I have checked that
> installer/src/com/adobe/utils/IntUtil.as (which is mentioned in LICENSE
> file as Adobe licensed) contains Ap
Thanks for explaining, I finally got Carol's point on installer.
I still cannot fully understand the licensing. I have checked that
installer/src/com/adobe/utils/IntUtil.as (which is mentioned in LICENSE
file as Adobe licensed) contains Apache license header.
Why do you need any additional attrib
On 11/1/12 3:04 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
> First, I'm not a lawyer. More experienced guys will tell us more.
>
> In our project (Openmeetings) we keep the files which are not Apache
> licensed in different places, e.g. at googlecode, and collect them
> during the build process via wget. We
First, I'm not a lawyer. More experienced guys will tell us more.
In our project (Openmeetings) we keep the files which are not Apache
licensed in different places, e.g. at googlecode, and collect them
during the build process via wget. We do not include them into a
source release.
--
With best r
On 11/1/12 2:50 PM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
> I mention ./LICENSE file from the source release and naturally assume
> this is the source release license.
> Then I assume Apache source release should be generally Apache
> licensed. This is not necessarily true for a binary release which can
> c
I mention ./LICENSE file from the source release and naturally assume
this is the source release license.
Then I assume Apache source release should be generally Apache
licensed. This is not necessarily true for a binary release which can
contain compatibly licensed components.
--
With best regard
On 11/1/12 3 :59PM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>
>
>On 11/1/12 7 :36AM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
>
>>Hello OmPrakash,
>>
>>I have notices that the LICENSE file has few additions two Apache
>>License:
>>
>>1. The second entry for Apache license.
>>2. Something like BSD license.
>>
>>The first item
On 11/1/12 1:16 PM, "sebb" wrote:
>>> The key C1708693 does not appear to be available from the normal
>>> public PGP key servers.
>>
>> I presume you would like Om to publish his key.
>
> Yes, that is required so end users can fetch it if required.
>
> Also AIUI it is used by Nexus.
>
Th
Carol,
There are usually two licenses - for a source release and for binary
distribution. Was the agreement you mentioned about source release
license?
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:
On 1 November 2012 20:03, Carol Frampton wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/12 7 :16AM, "sebb" wrote:
>
>>On 30 October 2012 20:16, Om wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the
>>>Apache
>>> Flex SDK Installer (Incubating) AIR application.
>>>
>>> The A
On 11/1/12 7 :16AM, "sebb" wrote:
>On 30 October 2012 20:16, Om wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the
>>Apache
>> Flex SDK Installer (Incubating) AIR application.
>>
>> The Apache Flex SDK Installer AIR application provides an easy,
>>
On 11/1/12 7 :36AM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
>Hello OmPrakash,
>
>I have notices that the LICENSE file has few additions two Apache License:
>
>1. The second entry for Apache license.
>2. Something like BSD license.
>
>The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can be
>resolve
On 11/1/12 7 :43AM, "Alexei Fedotov" wrote:
>I have also found the following line of code:
>> ./installer/src/InstallApacheFlex.mxml: var
>>licenseWindow:AdobeLicense = new AdobeLicense();
>
>Shouldn't you use new ApacheLicense() here?
No, AdobeLicense is correct. The installe
I have also found the following line of code:
> ./installer/src/InstallApacheFlex.mxml: var
> licenseWindow:AdobeLicense = new AdobeLicense();
Shouldn't you use new ApacheLicense() here?
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dat
Hello OmPrakash,
I have notices that the LICENSE file has few additions two Apache License:
1. The second entry for Apache license.
2. Something like BSD license.
The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can be
resolved by adding BSD-like licensed files during build.
So the
On 30 October 2012 20:16, Om wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the Apache
> Flex SDK Installer (Incubating) AIR application.
>
> The Apache Flex SDK Installer AIR application provides an easy,
> single-click installation of the Apache Flex SDK
Hi folks,
We need one more IPMC member vote for us to be able to ship this. Can
someone please take a look when you get a chance?
I will be glad to answer any questions or concerns you may have.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Om wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After our first release as Ap
Hi all,
After our first release as Apache Flex, we are following it up with the Apache
Flex SDK Installer (Incubating) AIR application.
The Apache Flex SDK Installer AIR application provides an easy,
single-click installation of the Apache Flex SDK and all its dependencies.
This will make it sui
32 matches
Mail list logo
