[Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
I think the author is an Adobe employee.  It isn't clear he would own
copyright.  I know I wouldn't if I had written it.

I think the current situation is acceptable and no changes are required.

-Alex

On 4/18/18, 5:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>The NOTICE had the wrong year in it so I fixed that. We would need to
>curt another RC if we want correct in the release.
>
>The licensing for the NativeApplicationUpdater is a little odd. The
>LICENSE file states:
>"The NativeApplicationUpdater is available under Apache License 2.0.
>For details see installer/src/com/riaspace/“
>
>But there are no details in that location and the files have ASF headers.
>The files probably should probably have a 3rd party Apache header or the
>LICENSE file mention who the original copyright holder was. The original
>author is [1]. Which solution do people prefer?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1.
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com
>%2F14400178&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cea575ad054fb4cd3bfc808d5a5
>88b779%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636596929042461650&sda
>ta=GGqDX5g%2BwIIr6q7%2BImF8u1IOXAIeoVp%2BiXMGAIN0f5E%3D&reserved=0

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Justin Mclean-5
Hi,

> I think the author is an Adobe employee.  It isn't clear he would own
> copyright.  I know I wouldn't if I had written it.

AFAIK This code wasn’t part of Adobe’s donation to Apache but added later as it was Apache licensed.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

piotrz
I have found some time and I'm cutting the RC.

2018-04-19 11:32 GMT+02:00 Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> > I think the author is an Adobe employee.  It isn't clear he would own
> > copyright.  I know I wouldn't if I had written it.
>
> AFAIK This code wasn’t part of Adobe’s donation to Apache but added later
> as it was Apache licensed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin




--

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean-5
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with that.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
Hi Justin,

I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past.  Adobe Legal will
say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there
with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license.  It would
be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if
it didn't already have an OS license.  I suppose I could go bug some
higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far.  Maybe if
someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that.

Adobe is happy to share code.  I'm happy to share code.  I'm sorry you are
not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your
assessment of the situation.  I just want our users to be able to safely
use our code and install Flex with fewer problems.

-Alex


On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe
>licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to
>the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think
>Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you
>think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with
>that.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Dave Fisher
Hi Alex,

The license is AL2 on Google Code.

On Github - no licenses and no headers:

Original programmer has not touched this in 7 years.

Om?

Regards,
Dave

On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Justin,

I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past.  Adobe Legal will
say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there
with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license.  It would
be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if
it didn't already have an OS license.  I suppose I could go bug some
higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far.  Maybe if
someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that.

Adobe is happy to share code.  I'm happy to share code.  I'm sorry you are
not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your
assessment of the situation.  I just want our users to be able to safely
use our code and install Flex with fewer problems.

-Alex


On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe
licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to
the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think
Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you
think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with
that.

Thanks,
Justin



signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

OmPrakash Muppirala
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Alex, Justin,

Before you go any further into this discussion, please remember that
technically we don't even need to release the source for this.  No one is
going to download the source artifacts for the Installer.

The Installer is a convenience application we provide to our users so that
they can easily download and assemble the SDK.

Please keep the big picture in the mind before starting another licensing
discussion.  This list is very big and we don't want to waste the time with
inconsequential discussions.

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past.  Adobe Legal will
> say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there
> with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license.  It would
> be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if
> it didn't already have an OS license.  I suppose I could go bug some
> higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far.  Maybe if
> someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that.
>
> Adobe is happy to share code.  I'm happy to share code.  I'm sorry you are
> not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your
> assessment of the situation.  I just want our users to be able to safely
> use our code and install Flex with fewer problems.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe
> >licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to
> >the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think
> >Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you
> >think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with
> >that.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

piotrz
+1!

Better spend time on checking installer, cause users are waiting ! :)

2018-04-19 20:46 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]>:

> Alex, Justin,
>
> Before you go any further into this discussion, please remember that
> technically we don't even need to release the source for this.  No one is
> going to download the source artifacts for the Installer.
>
> The Installer is a convenience application we provide to our users so that
> they can easily download and assemble the SDK.
>
> Please keep the big picture in the mind before starting another licensing
> discussion.  This list is very big and we don't want to waste the time with
> inconsequential discussions.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past.  Adobe Legal will
> > say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there
> > with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license.  It would
> > be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if
> > it didn't already have an OS license.  I suppose I could go bug some
> > higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far.  Maybe if
> > someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that.
> >
> > Adobe is happy to share code.  I'm happy to share code.  I'm sorry you
> are
> > not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your
> > assessment of the situation.  I just want our users to be able to safely
> > use our code and install Flex with fewer problems.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe
> > >licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to
> > >the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you
> think
> > >Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you
> > >think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with
> > >that.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Justin
> >
> >
>



--

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by OmPrakash Muppirala
Yup,

Given that it has been this way for nearly 6 years … and it is only a few source files … and we can argue it is AL2 … then the only consideration would be the author asserting his copyright … which it looks like he never put on his code even though it is implicit.

If Justin wants to contact him directly then he is free to do so …

Regards,
Dave


> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:46 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Alex, Justin,
>
> Before you go any further into this discussion, please remember that
> technically we don't even need to release the source for this.  No one is
> going to download the source artifacts for the Installer.
>
> The Installer is a convenience application we provide to our users so that
> they can easily download and assemble the SDK.
>
> Please keep the big picture in the mind before starting another licensing
> discussion.  This list is very big and we don't want to waste the time with
> inconsequential discussions.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> I've asked Adobe Legal similar questions in the past.  Adobe Legal will
>> say it is fine because it is related to Flex and was already out there
>> with a open source license, and even better, an Apache license.  It would
>> be bit trickier if it wasn't already ALv2, and much harder/impossible if
>> it didn't already have an OS license.  I suppose I could go bug some
>> higher up to nod in agreement, but they have every time so far.  Maybe if
>> someone files a suit against Apache I'll go do that.
>>
>> Adobe is happy to share code.  I'm happy to share code.  I'm sorry you are
>> not happy and feel you must attack me for pointing out an error in your
>> assessment of the situation.  I just want our users to be able to safely
>> use our code and install Flex with fewer problems.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> On 4/19/18, 2:47 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So Alex as an Adobe employee you're happy that someone took Adobe
>>> licensed code (assuming that is the case) that wasn’t part of a grant to
>>> the ASF and added it to the code base with ASF headers? What do you think
>>> Adobe legal might say about this? No need to ask them I just asking you
>>> think what they might say. I’m guessing they may have a small issue with
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>
>>


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

You don’t need to assert copyright it exists the moment something is created. In this case copyright is with someone (the author or perhaps Adobe) not us but that’s OK as it Apache licensed.

If a file is developed at the ASF it has the standard ASF header [1] but if it’s a 3rd party work it clearly states “3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files.” [2] Which is exactly what has happened here. Is everyone OK that we are not following ASF legal policy? Especially considering it's easy to fix?

The ASF header states "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements.” Is this true for those files?

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Dave Fisher
Hi Justin,

Please update the header for these files.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You don’t need to assert copyright it exists the moment something is created. In this case copyright is with someone (the author or perhaps Adobe) not us but that’s OK as it Apache licensed.
>
> If a file is developed at the ASF it has the standard ASF header [1] but if it’s a 3rd party work it clearly states “3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files.” [2] Which is exactly what has happened here. Is everyone OK that we are not following ASF legal policy? Especially considering it's easy to fix?
>
> The ASF header states "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements.” Is this true for those files?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

darrin
Could someone take me off this list, the instructions that are supposed to do does not work 


RegardsDarrin 
TennisOutlaws.com
-------- Original message --------From: Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> Date: 20/04/2018  04:48  (GMT+00:00) To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*
Hi Justin,

Please update the header for these files.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You don’t need to assert copyright it exists the moment something is created. In this case copyright is with someone (the author or perhaps Adobe) not us but that’s OK as it Apache licensed.
>
> If a file is developed at the ASF it has the standard ASF header [1] but if it’s a 3rd party work it clearly states “3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files.” [2] Which is exactly what has happened here. Is everyone OK that we are not following ASF legal policy? Especially considering it's easy to fix?
>
> The ASF header states "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements.” Is this true for those files?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher
IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the header
does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party since
the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it is ok
for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've done
this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.

We continue to waste time on technicalities.  The world will not end
because we have a small header discrepancy.  RC3 is not illegal and better
than the last release.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 4/19/18, 8:48 PM, "Dave Fisher" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Justin,
>
>Please update the header for these files.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You don’t need to assert copyright it exists the moment something is
>>created. In this case copyright is with someone (the author or perhaps
>>Adobe) not us but that’s OK as it Apache licensed.
>>
>> If a file is developed at the ASF it has the standard ASF header [1]
>>but if it’s a 3rd party work it clearly states “3. Do not add the
>>standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files.”
>>[2] Which is exactly what has happened here. Is everyone OK that we are
>>not following ASF legal policy? Especially considering it's easy to fix?
>>
>> The ASF header states "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>>under one or more contributor license agreements.” Is this true for
>>those files?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apac
>>he.org%2Flegal%2Fsrc-headers.html%23headers&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
>>.com%7C7bf68927039d4607982e08d5a6719972%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee
>>1%7C0%7C0%7C636597929228180210&sdata=eIOFkGHQmhwLeiYnMAGJnRjTMlUIeYwcC%2B
>>A1rLnmXXo%3D&reserved=0
>> 2.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apac
>>he.org%2Flegal%2Fsrc-headers.html%233party&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.
>>com%7C7bf68927039d4607982e08d5a6719972%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
>>%7C0%7C0%7C636597929228180210&sdata=lv7ndXhR%2F2rbWtoRHFEat8gvVEdA4PZ65DB
>>LeqwUN%2Fo%3D&reserved=0
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher
Hi Darrin, I am in the process of unsubscribing the email address I have
for you.  Hopefully this will be the last email you see from this mailing
list.  Let me know if you continue to get emails after a couple of hours
from now.  And, of course, you are always welcome to rejoin the lists.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 4/19/18, 10:38 PM, "darrin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Could someone take me off this list, the instructions that are supposed
>to do does not work
>
>
>RegardsDarrin
>TennisOutlaws.com
>-------- Original message --------From: Dave Fisher
><[hidden email]> Date: 20/04/2018  04:48  (GMT+00:00) To:
>[hidden email] Subject: Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer
>3.3.1 RC2*
>Hi Justin,
>
>Please update the header for these files.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You don’t need to assert copyright it exists the moment something is
>>created. In this case copyright is with someone (the author or perhaps
>>Adobe) not us but that’s OK as it Apache licensed.
>>
>> If a file is developed at the ASF it has the standard ASF header [1]
>>but if it’s a 3rd party work it clearly states “3. Do not add the
>>standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files.”
>>[2] Which is exactly what has happened here. Is everyone OK that we are
>>not following ASF legal policy? Especially considering it's easy to fix?
>>
>> The ASF header states "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>>under one or more contributor license agreements.” Is this true for
>>those files?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apac
>>he.org%2Flegal%2Fsrc-headers.html%23headers&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe
>>.com%7C334a7baf7fb44f93e66b08d5a6810321%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee
>>1%7C0%7C0%7C636597995396384139&sdata=1twB7wsk5XigUxcBHyPPqF5qiO36wvPTYDRm
>>fbhwboo%3D&reserved=0
>> 2.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apac
>>he.org%2Flegal%2Fsrc-headers.html%233party&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.
>>com%7C334a7baf7fb44f93e66b08d5a6810321%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
>>%7C0%7C0%7C636597995396384139&sdata=g7RIeMII7qer7Dilcvn5EUE58gQWDNWjWQU7A
>>fz6iag%3D&reserved=0
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Hi,

> IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the header
> does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party since
> the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it is ok
> for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've done
> this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.

I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy than not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would need to confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal discuss if that’s OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if they need to be.

I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog and I don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He was based in Poland according to his blog.)

Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original author hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a little longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and the US) it’s life of the author + 70 years.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
You are going to make up copyright law by having an "or" in the copyright statement and somehow think that makes things better?

The release has the ASF header for this file.  I believe Adobe owns this code.   I believe have the right to donate this code on behalf of Adobe.  The release is therefore correct.  Does anybody else disagree?  I don't think your changes of adding an "or" are conformant to copyright law anywhere.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 4/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    Hi,
   
    > IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the header
    > does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party since
    > the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it is ok
    > for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've done
    > this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.
   
    I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy than not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would need to confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal discuss if that’s OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if they need to be.
   
    I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog and I don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He was based in Poland according to his blog.)
   
    Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original author hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a little longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and the US) it’s life of the author + 70 years.
   
    Thanks,
    Justin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

piotrz
When I will be next time RM in Flex or Royale project and license issue
occur I'm not going to wait for answer, but immediately raise Legal jira.
Right now it is a waste of our time to make an attention to something which
seems to do not going to bring us any problems with law.

Does that make sense ?

2018-04-20 17:20 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[hidden email]>:

> You are going to make up copyright law by having an "or" in the copyright
> statement and somehow think that makes things better?
>
> The release has the ASF header for this file.  I believe Adobe owns this
> code.   I believe have the right to donate this code on behalf of Adobe.
> The release is therefore correct.  Does anybody else disagree?  I don't
> think your changes of adding an "or" are conformant to copyright law
> anywhere.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     > IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the
> header
>     > does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party
> since
>     > the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it
> is ok
>     > for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've
> done
>     > this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.
>
>     I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy
> than not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would
> need to confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal
> discuss if that’s OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if
> they need to be.
>
>     I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as
> although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog
> and I don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how
> employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He
> was based in Poland according to his blog.)
>
>     Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original
> author hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a
> little longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and
> the US) it’s life of the author + 70 years.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Justin
>
>


--

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Alex Harui-2
FWIW, I confirmed with the author that this code is Adobe-owned.  Consider it "donated".

Thanks,
-Alex

On 4/20/18, 8:36 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    When I will be next time RM in Flex or Royale project and license issue
    occur I'm not going to wait for answer, but immediately raise Legal jira.
    Right now it is a waste of our time to make an attention to something which
    seems to do not going to bring us any problems with law.
   
    Does that make sense ?
   
    2018-04-20 17:20 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[hidden email]>:
   
    > You are going to make up copyright law by having an "or" in the copyright
    > statement and somehow think that makes things better?
    >
    > The release has the ASF header for this file.  I believe Adobe owns this
    > code.   I believe have the right to donate this code on behalf of Adobe.
    > The release is therefore correct.  Does anybody else disagree?  I don't
    > think your changes of adding an "or" are conformant to copyright law
    > anywhere.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > -Alex
    >
    > On 4/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    >     Hi,
    >
    >     > IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the
    > header
    >     > does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party
    > since
    >     > the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it
    > is ok
    >     > for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've
    > done
    >     > this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.
    >
    >     I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy
    > than not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would
    > need to confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal
    > discuss if that’s OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if
    > they need to be.
    >
    >     I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as
    > although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog
    > and I don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how
    > employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He
    > was based in Poland according to his blog.)
    >
    >     Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original
    > author hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a
    > little longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and
    > the US) it’s life of the author + 70 years.
    >
    >     Thanks,
    >     Justin
    >
    >
   
   
    --
   
    Piotr Zarzycki
   
    Patreon: *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8addf80cbb874dad350008d5a6d476b5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636598353810889864&sdata=xtr3InvAhOKjB9cz3HJWjey54eEWJFxtGX15oNv2pnI%3D&reserved=0
    <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8addf80cbb874dad350008d5a6d476b5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636598353810889864&sdata=xtr3InvAhOKjB9cz3HJWjey54eEWJFxtGX15oNv2pnI%3D&reserved=0>*
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Discuss] Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.3.1 RC2*

Dave Fisher
Great. It no way was I saying that we should have delayed anything while ironing out these details.

Regards,
Dave

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I confirmed with the author that this code is Adobe-owned.  Consider it "donated".
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/20/18, 8:36 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>   When I will be next time RM in Flex or Royale project and license issue
>   occur I'm not going to wait for answer, but immediately raise Legal jira.
>   Right now it is a waste of our time to make an attention to something which
>   seems to do not going to bring us any problems with law.
>
>   Does that make sense ?
>
>   2018-04-20 17:20 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[hidden email]>:
>
>> You are going to make up copyright law by having an "or" in the copyright
>> statement and somehow think that makes things better?
>>
>> The release has the ASF header for this file.  I believe Adobe owns this
>> code.   I believe have the right to donate this code on behalf of Adobe.
>> The release is therefore correct.  Does anybody else disagree?  I don't
>> think your changes of adding an "or" are conformant to copyright law
>> anywhere.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 4/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>> IMO, we'd be better off having these files donated to Apache so the
>> header
>>> does not need to change.  There is no need to keep it as third-party
>> since
>>> the original author hasn't touched it in years.  I'm pretty sure it
>> is ok
>>> for me to just say it is owned by Adobe and thus donated.   We've
>> done
>>> this in the past without a whole SGA.  It is just a couple of files.
>>
>>   I’ve changed the headers IMO it better to comply with ASF legal policy
>> than not to. If you want retroactively get them donated I believe you would
>> need to confirm that Adobe does own the copyright and check on legal
>> discuss if that’s OK. I’ll change the headers back to ASF ones for you if
>> they need to be.
>>
>>   I put the copyright as "Copyright 2011 Piotr Walczyszyn or Adobe” as
>> although he was working for Adobe at the time this was his personal blog
>> and I don’t know the what the terms of his contact with Adobe was or how
>> employee/employer copyright ownership works under Polish copyright law. (He
>> was based in Poland according to his blog.)
>>
>>   Re "There is no need to keep it as third-party since the original
>> author hasn't touched it in years.” I think you find that copyright lasts a
>> little longer than that :-) I’ve no idea what it is in Poland but here (and
>> the US) it’s life of the author + 70 years.
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>   Justin
>>
>>
>
>
>   --
>
>   Piotr Zarzycki
>
>   Patreon: *https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8addf80cbb874dad350008d5a6d476b5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636598353810889864&sdata=xtr3InvAhOKjB9cz3HJWjey54eEWJFxtGX15oNv2pnI%3D&reserved=0
>   <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8addf80cbb874dad350008d5a6d476b5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636598353810889864&sdata=xtr3InvAhOKjB9cz3HJWjey54eEWJFxtGX15oNv2pnI%3D&reserved=0>*
>
>


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
123