[LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
326 messages Options
1234 ... 17
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
Hi,

It's been six months or so since 0.7.0 and it would be nice to get a new
release out before/at ApacheCon.

I have just seen the dual branch build successfully for both Ant and Maven
when merged with the develop branch as of yesterday.  DataBindingExample
works ok, there are some sizing issues, and I will be going through the
other examples and tuning them up.  In the mean time, it would be great
for folks to poke at the dual branch before I merge it into develop.

Once dual is merged with develop, I'll create the release branch and
release builds.

The only other "must do" I know of is to make sure we've removed the
dependency on org.json.

What else do we need to get done before we release 0.8.0?

Thanks,
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

As I mentioned in another thread there are currently several unresolved licensing issues, which off the top of head are:
- outstanding issues from the last two releases
- JSON license “do no evil” dependancy issue
- possible IP issue (MD5 code) checked in a few weeks ago

IMO these would need to be sorted before we could make a release.

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

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
Can you be more specific about the outstanding issues.

Thanks
Alex

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>


________________________________
From: Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 4:43:06 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Hi,

As I mentioned in another thread there are currently several unresolved licensing issues, which off the top of head are:
- outstanding issues from the last two releases
- JSON license “do no evil” dependancy issue
- possible IP issue (MD5 code) checked in a few weeks ago

IMO these would need to be sorted before we could make a release.

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

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Harbs
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
As I already responded, IMO there are none.

> On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:43 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> - possible IP issue (MD5 code) checked in a few weeks ago

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

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

> Can you be more specific about the outstanding issues.

Yep see [1] and this thread [2]. It's generally expected that any outstanding issues form a previous vote are fixed in the next release.

I think the JSON license issue has been resolved and I respond to Harbs about the other issue.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/013d7d58896d066bcb1f68d3e2935f5c25c83106c4a208f2e3a9c6d9@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E
2. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5f27fdba97e62c45c863e15b85c66a109d2c3172d009836fc1088734@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Harbs
Hi,

> As I already responded, IMO there are none.

The code original comes from a 3rd party and is BSD licensed [1]

So why:
1. Does our file have an Apache header? [2]
2. Is the BSD license in question is missing from the LICENSE file? [3]

It seems to me quite likely that Adobe may of changed the header prior to donation perhaps legally perhaps not. Is there any way we can find out the history pre donation? There is a history of Adobe being a little loose with IP / licensing in unit tests.

Looking at the directory [4] there may be another files having the same issue - IntUtil.as

The easy solution as allways it to add the license to LICENSE and in that case it at worse becomes a documentation issue rather than a licensing issue.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/blob/master/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5.as <https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/blob/master/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5.as>
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party>
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps>
4. https://github.com/apache/flex-tlf/tree/develop/automation_core/src/UnitTest/Validation <https://github.com/apache/flex-tlf/tree/develop/automation_core/src/UnitTest/Validation>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Harbs
You have no way of determining that the original came from as3corelib and not the other way around. Mike Chambers was an Adobe employee and the code he wrote belongs to Adobe. Adobe can license it however they want. In fact they donated it to Apache, so there are no issues.

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> As I already responded, IMO there are none.
>
> The code original comes from a 3rd party and is BSD licensed [1]
>
> So why:
> 1. Does our file have an Apache header? [2]
> 2. Is the BSD license in question is missing from the LICENSE file? [3]
>
> It seems to me quite likely that Adobe may of changed the header prior to donation perhaps legally perhaps not. Is there any way we can find out the history pre donation? There is a history of Adobe being a little loose with IP / licensing in unit tests.
>
> Looking at the directory [4] there may be another files having the same issue - IntUtil.as
>
> The easy solution as allways it to add the license to LICENSE and in that case it at worse becomes a documentation issue rather than a licensing issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/blob/master/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5.as <https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/blob/master/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5.as>
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party>
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps>
> 4. https://github.com/apache/flex-tlf/tree/develop/automation_core/src/UnitTest/Validation <https://github.com/apache/flex-tlf/tree/develop/automation_core/src/UnitTest/Validation>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> You have no way of determining that the original came from as3corelib and not the other way around.

Yes we do we can ask the people involved. Also look at the github dates, for instance the license was updated in 2008. [1]

Alex has requested the same on other licensing issues so why should this be different?

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/commits/24c6c16aecbf0d8fcc043ae671e689b0d4b4c559/tests/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5Test.as
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Harbs
My point is that it does not matter which came from where.

Even if you are right (which I doubt — Mike Chambers probably just took most of the code from existing code bases) the code was owned by Adobe (since it was written by an Adobe employee whether Mike Chambers or someone else) and Adobe donated it to Apache under the Apache license. We have no reason to question their right to do so.

I don’t know what other licensing issues you refer to, so I can’t respond to that, but in this case I see no reason to do anything.

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> You have no way of determining that the original came from as3corelib and not the other way around.
>
> Yes we do we can ask the people involved. Also look at the github dates, for instance the license was updated in 2008. [1]
>
> Alex has requested the same on other licensing issues so why should this be different?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/commits/24c6c16aecbf0d8fcc043ae671e689b0d4b4c559/tests/src/com/adobe/crypto/MD5Test.as

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

OmPrakash Muppirala
Justin, you are welcome to contact the original authors and find out more.
But please don't expect the release process to wait till we figure this
out.

We can fix license headers in a subsequent release if needed.

I would rather Alex and Harbs continue their coding, prepping for release,
etc instead of spending more time on this issue.

Thanks,
Om


On Apr 23, 2017 8:00 AM, "Harbs" <[hidden email]> wrote:

My point is that it does not matter which came from where.

Even if you are right (which I doubt — Mike Chambers probably just took
most of the code from existing code bases) the code was owned by Adobe
(since it was written by an Adobe employee whether Mike Chambers or someone
else) and Adobe donated it to Apache under the Apache license. We have no
reason to question their right to do so.

I don’t know what other licensing issues you refer to, so I can’t respond
to that, but in this case I see no reason to do anything.

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> You have no way of determining that the original came from as3corelib
and not the other way around.
>
> Yes we do we can ask the people involved. Also look at the github dates,
for instance the license was updated in 2008. [1]
>
> Alex has requested the same on other licensing issues so why should this
be different?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://github.com/mikechambers/as3corelib/commits/
24c6c16aecbf0d8fcc043ae671e689b0d4b4c559/tests/src/com/
adobe/crypto/MD5Test.as
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean


On 4/23/17, 2:18 AM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Can you be more specific about the outstanding issues.
>
>Yep see [1] and this thread [2]. It's generally expected that any
>outstanding issues form a previous vote are fixed in the next release.

The patch file issue was resolved.  The externs are not derivative works.

The MIT license changes you want to make are not "must do".  Just
something you want to do.  Now would be a good time to do them.



-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by OmPrakash Muppirala
Do any other PMC members have concerns about the MD5 code?  I don't.  I
think we're good to go.

-Alex

On 4/23/17, 8:33 AM, "[hidden email] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

>Justin, you are welcome to contact the original authors and find out more.
>But please don't expect the release process to wait till we figure this
>out.
>
>We can fix license headers in a subsequent release if needed.
>
>I would rather Alex and Harbs continue their coding, prepping for release,
>etc instead of spending more time on this issue.
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>On Apr 23, 2017 8:00 AM, "Harbs" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>My point is that it does not matter which came from where.
>
>Even if you are right (which I doubt — Mike Chambers probably just took
>most of the code from existing code bases) the code was owned by Adobe
>(since it was written by an Adobe employee whether Mike Chambers or
>someone
>else) and Adobe donated it to Apache under the Apache license. We have no
>reason to question their right to do so.
>
>I don’t know what other licensing issues you refer to, so I can’t respond
>to that, but in this case I see no reason to do anything.
>
>Thanks,
>Harbs
>
>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> You have no way of determining that the original came from as3corelib
>and not the other way around.
>>
>> Yes we do we can ask the people involved. Also look at the github dates,
>for instance the license was updated in 2008. [1]
>>
>> Alex has requested the same on other licensing issues so why should this
>be different?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>>om%2Fmikechambers%2Fas3corelib%2Fcommits%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C245e228336f
>>94424e63208d48a5e0e12%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636285
>>584131328921&sdata=FN5KN2STmyuXZutVOyHEKnKIbLGJ0E4%2BYgZne5MH46w%3D&reser
>>ved=0
>24c6c16aecbf0d8fcc043ae671e689b0d4b4c559/tests/src/com/
>adobe/crypto/MD5Test.as

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

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

> The patch file issue was resolved.  The externs are not derivative works.

How was it resolved? From what I can see there’s wasn't confirmation on legal discuss.

> The MIT license changes you want to make are not "must do".  Just
> something you want to do.  Now would be a good time to do them.

They are required in order to comply with the terms of the MIT license. Releases need to comply with ASF policy on licensing. [1] I’ll go ahead and make the change(s) later today.

Thanks,
Justin

1.https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

piotrz
In reply to this post by Alex Harui
Hi Alex,

I just switch from develop to dual for compiler and merge your couple of last commits from develop to dual. Run maven build and it's failed [1]

[1] https://paste.apache.org/DG3C

Piotr
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean


On 4/23/17, 9:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> The patch file issue was resolved.  The externs are not derivative
>>works.
>
>How was it resolved? From what I can see there’s wasn't confirmation on
>legal discuss.

Do any other PMC members think we need to get confirmation from legal
discuss?  Seems like it would be strange to ask non-laywers if the agree
on the opinion of a practicing lawyer.

>
>> The MIT license changes you want to make are not "must do".  Just
>> something you want to do.  Now would be a good time to do them.
>
>They are required in order to comply with the terms of the MIT license.
>Releases need to comply with ASF policy on licensing. [1] I’ll go ahead
>and make the change(s) later today.

The changes you are making are a workaround, and the discussion on
legal-discuss did not mandate it.  The original code still won't comply
until the original community to accept changes.

Thanks,
-Alex


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by piotrz
Rats.  Forgot to push that fix.  It should be there now.

Thanks for catching that.

-Alex

On 4/24/17, 12:27 AM, "piotrz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>I just switch from develop to dual for compiler and merge your couple of
>last commits from develop to dual. Run maven build and it's failed [1]
>
>[1]
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>che.org%2FDG3C&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3b3a0c98f45e4ee5ec7d08d48ae4efc9%7Cfa7b1b
>5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636286163266324210&sdata=HtV3f%2ByaOx
>5BVe2bbl0ywdnFybW4hBd3PuM6hsM64RM%3D&reserved=0
>
>Piotr
>
>
>
>-----
>Apache Flex PMC
>[hidden email]
>--
>View this message in context:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FLAST-CALL-Release-FlexJS-FalconJX-0-
>8-0-tp61275p61303.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3b3a0c98f45e4ee5ec7d08d48ae4efc9%
>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636286163266324210&sdata=d2dt
>Q%2FI2VB7fASbAaSPY68x5srlFjyyx5FPAq8j4u5A%3D&reserved=0
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

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

>> How was it resolved? From what I can see there’s wasn't confirmation on
>> legal discuss.
>
> Do any other PMC members think we need to get confirmation from legal
> discuss?  Seems like it would be strange to ask non-laywers if the agree
> on the opinion of a practicing lawyer.

Again how and where was this resolved? Can you provide a link please.

ASF legal policy is often more than just following the legal minimum required.

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

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

piotrz
In reply to this post by Alex Harui
Alex,

I just tried built dual - falcon and sdk - everything goes smoothly. I have found following issue.

I've compiled simple application on develop and dual. [1] On develop it's running without the problem but built on dual produce following error [2]. I've prepared sources for develop [3] and dual [4] - You can find compiled version in target folders. [3]

[1] https://paste.apache.org/vXpb
[2] https://paste.apache.org/OUN0
[3] https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApVpLyjpHDC2zSVLVDPsvVeimS3Y
[4] https://1drv.ms/u/s!ApVpLyjpHDC2zSSkcHwMrf2gZckl

Piotr
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

piotrz
In reply to this post by Alex Harui
Alex,

Another one is with maven. Distribution options for FlexJS maven build is failing on dual [1].

Command: -s settings-template.xml -Drat.skip=true -DdistributionTargetFolder=distribution-flexjs -P build-distribution clean install

[1] https://paste.apache.org/HM9w

Piotr

Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by piotrz
I'm on my way to an appointment so I'll read the links later, but compare
the poms for the examples in dual vs develop.  The poms will need
adjusting for dual.

HTH,
-Alex

On 4/24/17, 3:06 PM, "piotrz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Alex,
>
>I just tried built dual - falcon and sdk - everything goes smoothly. I
>have
>found following issue.
>
>I've compiled simple application on develop and dual. [1] On develop it's
>running without the problem but built on dual produce following error [2].
>I've prepared sources for develop [3] and dual [4] - You can find compiled
>version in target folders. [3]
>
>[1]
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>che.org%2FvXpb&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8a58373232e40a5355b08d48b5fb308%7Cfa7b1b
>5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636286690523958798&sdata=76JFMTuQ1ibf
>hm7r%2FZgLajX%2FDg8OTt5i1PVNT7pnKEc%3D&reserved=0
>[2]
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>che.org%2FOUN0&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8a58373232e40a5355b08d48b5fb308%7Cfa7b1b
>5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636286690523958798&sdata=MpDg2nb%2Ba5
>CD3hbXkdtLXOVciey4k6pWATpMv5UpN2U%3D&reserved=0
>[3]
><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1drv.ms%2">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1drv.ms%2
>Fu%2Fs!ApVpLyjpHDC2zSVLVDPsvVeimS3Y&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8a58373232e40a5355b
>08d48b5fb308%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6362866905239587
>98&sdata=8C9%2FMXFUD9F%2B5vGHuSWbW2poAm9ECiDHoFSYgd3ayX0%3D&reserved=0
>[4]
><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1drv.ms%2">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F1drv.ms%2
>Fu%2Fs!ApVpLyjpHDC2zSSkcHwMrf2gZckl&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8a58373232e40a5355b
>08d48b5fb308%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6362866905239587
>98&sdata=PbkyE6DXJx1CcttQtyKxDhRaHIbjEALyZmj0FK5WVfw%3D&reserved=0
>
>Piotr
>
>
>
>-----
>Apache Flex PMC
>[hidden email]
>--
>View this message in context:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FLAST-CALL-Release-FlexJS-FalconJX-0-
>8-0-tp61275p61315.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8a58373232e40a5355b08d48b5fb308%
>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636286690523958798&sdata=7Sw2
>UaKgKbxPyUrr4V3vU6%2FE9ZIH11ErnwQBaYcZfkQ%3D&reserved=0
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

1234 ... 17