[LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
326 messages Options
123456 ... 17
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> Adobe would certainly be able to relicense that one and remove the header.

Perhaps - but that would most likely depend on the contract Adobe had with Mike Chambers (assuming he's the original author) at the time or if non Adobe people had contributed to that code on GitHub. It’s not always so clear who owns copyright. That's one reason Apache has ICLAs.

But you're right in that in the US it is generally the case that the company you work for owns the copyright of all code you produce. But if I had written that code in Australia, by default the company I wrote it for would not own the copyright and would of needed my permission to change the license.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

OmPrakash Muppirala
On Apr 25, 2017 3:52 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

> Adobe would certainly be able to relicense that one and remove the header.

Perhaps - but that would most likely depend on the contract Adobe had with
Mike Chambers (assuming he's the original author) at the time or if non
Adobe people had contributed to that code on GitHub. It’s not always so
clear who owns copyright. That's one reason Apache has ICLAs.

But you're right in that in the US it is generally the case that the
company you work for owns the copyright of all code you produce. But if I
had written that code in Australia, by default the company I wrote it for
would not own the copyright and would of needed my permission to change the
license.

Thanks,
Justin



Justin, which file(s)  are you talking about? What is the problem and what
is your proposed solution?

Thanks,
Om
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> Justin, which file(s)  are you talking about? What is the problem and what
> is your proposed solution?


The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms and b) not following ASF policy re 3rd party headers

For the CreateJS file IMO the solution would be re not remove the MIT header and add the MIT license text to our LICENSE.

Alex is of the opinion nothing needs to change but may reconsider after reading Roy’s Fielding’s response here. [1]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6139ae30d601e947de545f0ed662f519237bf761060f1dbac6b9a8c0@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz


On 4/25/17, 2:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>Ok seems my fix just made things generally work again, but yours would
>have been correct.
>
>If you are building it on the console, you should probably just type
>“yes” and hit enter. If you are running a CI build, you need to provide
>the … I just gave it a spin with a completely empty maven local repo and
>using the settings-template.xml and built all 3 projects and it worked
>fine.

I did type yes and watched the entire AIR SDK be downloaded and expanded
and then it would ask for a different AIR artifact and I'd type yes and
download an expand again.  It happened many times.  It took hours.  And in
the end it still failed as I showed in this output [3].  I don't know what
to do next.

[3] https://paste.apache.org/63fo


Thanks,
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean


On 4/25/17, 7:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Justin, which file(s)  are you talking about? What is the problem and
>>what
>> is your proposed solution?
>
>
>The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms
>and b) not following ASF policy re 3rd party headers
>
>For the CreateJS file IMO the solution would be re not remove the MIT
>header and add the MIT license text to our LICENSE.
>
>Alex is of the opinion nothing needs to change but may reconsider after
>reading Roy’s Fielding’s response here. [1]

Again, Adobe Legal said there is a distinction that an "externs" file is
not a derivative work, because it is a list of APIs and not really code.
So I would not be disagreeing with Justin if we were creating a derivative
work of code.  But it isn't the case here.  We are simply creating a list.
 There really isn't any code in an externs file and none of what there is
actually goes in the final output.  It simply is a list of symbols that
should not be renamed.

Thanks,
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

OmPrakash Muppirala
On Apr 25, 2017 9:08 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 4/25/17, 7:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Justin, which file(s)  are you talking about? What is the problem and
>>what
>> is your proposed solution?
>
>
>The problem IMO is two fold in we’re a) not following MIT license terms
>and b) not following ASF policy re 3rd party headers
>
>For the CreateJS file IMO the solution would be re not remove the MIT
>header and add the MIT license text to our LICENSE.
>
>Alex is of the opinion nothing needs to change but may reconsider after
>reading Roy’s Fielding’s response here. [1]

Again, Adobe Legal said there is a distinction that an "externs" file is
not a derivative work, because it is a list of APIs and not really code.
So I would not be disagreeing with Justin if we were creating a derivative
work of code.  But it isn't the case here.  We are simply creating a list.
 There really isn't any code in an externs file and none of what there is
actually goes in the final output.  It simply is a list of symbols that
should not be renamed.



Alex,

It sounds like we will be fine either way. If Justin makes this fix, will
you veto the commit?

Thanks,
Om



Thanks,
-Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/25/17, 9:30 PM, "[hidden email] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>Alex,
>
>It sounds like we will be fine either way. If Justin makes this fix, will
>you veto the commit?

If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it, I will have to spend
the time and energy to check with Adobe Legal as to what to do.  The least
effort for this community is to not change it, since it is not only "fine"
as it currently is, it is has been determined by an actual attorney to be
correct.

-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it

Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under.

INAL and Adobe may own the copyright on the patch, but if it's considered just a list as you say then they probably don’t (non creative items like lists can’t be copyrighted is my understanding) so I’m not sure how you can have it both ways. Could you explain? Either way they certailly don’t own the copyright of the original code.

Again INAL but I think you may be missing Ray's point that the contents of the file (including the comments retained by the patch) would still be under MIT license. That irrespective of it it’s treated as code or not. Anyway let see what Roy replies with and go with that.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/25/17, 9:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> If Justin takes Adobe-owned code and relicenses it
>
>Alex it was you who relicensed it from MIT to Apache so I would not be
>relicensing it just keeping the original license it was under.

Again, you assuming this is a derivative work.  Let's suppose that Google
redefined the externs format to look like this:

#List of Symbols That shouldn't be renamed
CreateJS
CreateJS.DisplayObject
CreateJS.DisplayObject.prototype.addChild
...

And I committed this file to our repo.  Would you still insist that it is
a derivative work?  Adobe Legal says it is a new work, and thus it can be
separately licensed.

>
>INAL and Adobe may own the copyright on the patch, but if it's considered
>just a list as you say then they probably don’t (non creative items like
>lists can’t be copyrighted is my understanding) so I’m not sure how you
>can have it both ways. Could you explain? Either way they certailly don’t
>own the copyright of the original code.

If I write a book about CreateJS and list some of the APIs of CreateJS,
the pages I wrote do not need the CreateJS license and I could license it
how I want to.  It would be different if I copied their actual
implementation or modifications of their implementation.


>
>Again INAL but I think you may be missing Ray's point that the contents
>of the file (including the comments retained by the patch) would still be
>under MIT license. That irrespective of it it’s treated as code or not.
>Anyway let see what Roy replies with and go with that.

Roy and everyone else were not informed that Adobe Legal determined that
the file is a new work and not a derivative work because it is a list, so
of course the came to the right conclusion for a derivative work.

Fundamentally, I took the time to get a real legal opinion.

-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> And I committed this file to our repo.  Would you still insist that it is
> a derivative work?

It probably depends on how it was generated. That why some people go to large efforts to make cleanroom implementing without even looking at the original code.

> If I write a book about CreateJS and list some of the APIs of CreateJS,
> the pages I wrote do not need the CreateJS license and I could license it
> how I want to.  It would be different if I copied their actual
> implementation or modifications of their implementation.

Well interestingly enough I have been in this exact situation and I was required to get permission (i.e. a license if you will) from the owners of the code to be able to include it in my book. I had to credit them and include their license and respect their trademarks. Now that could of just been the US publisher being overly cautious...

But rather than hypertheticals let focus on the actual issue here.

> Roy and everyone else were not informed that Adobe Legal determined that
> the file is a new work and not a derivative work because it is a list

I included your email to this list in my email to legal discuss so they knew at that point as much as everyone else here did.

> Fundamentally, I took the time to get a real legal opinion.

Which still may or may not be in line with ASF policy, again lets wait and see what Roy comes back with.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

Alex give Roy’s last repose [1] on legal discuss are you OK for me to go ahead and add back in the MIT license?

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6506d8e5001b74f36b338a81b3175f94da0c79785af04c9cd06fa44c@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/26/17, 3:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Alex give Roy’s last repose [1] on legal discuss are you OK for me to go
>ahead and add back in the MIT license?

Not yet.  I will be seeking clarification on whether I can manually create
the final result without it being called a derivative work.  Given that
Roy also seemed to say the patch files themselves shouldn't have ASF
headers, it might be most expedient for me to do away with the whole patch
process and manually create the final result.

-Alex


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> Not yet.  I will be seeking clarification on whether I can manually create
> the final result without it being called a derivative work.

I assume you be asking this on the current legal discuss thread? Wouldn’t it be less effort to just do as Roy advises and add the MIT header?

Even it you manually create the file it still may come down to an ASF policy question rather than a legal question which may also need to be resolved.

Thanks,
Justin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/26/17, 4:45 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Not yet.  I will be seeking clarification on whether I can manually
>>create
>> the final result without it being called a derivative work.
>
>I assume you be asking this on the current legal discuss thread? Wouldn’t
>it be less effort to just do as Roy advises and add the MIT header?

I am only currently authorized to donate Adobe-owned stuff to Apache.  If
the externs turn out to be owned by CreateJS, I will have to delete them
from the repo, and some non-Adobe person will have to figure out what to
do, or I will have to go through an Adobe-side process of getting approved
to donate this to CreateJS, which is more hassle than just manually
creating the files.

>
>Even it you manually create the file it still may come down to an ASF
>policy question rather than a legal question which may also need to be
>resolved.

Well, we'll see what Roy says.

-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Harbs
It was not clear why you are trying to avoid the MIT headers. Maybe you should clarify that in the @legal thread.

> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:51 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/17, 4:45 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Not yet.  I will be seeking clarification on whether I can manually
>>> create
>>> the final result without it being called a derivative work.
>>
>> I assume you be asking this on the current legal discuss thread? Wouldn’t
>> it be less effort to just do as Roy advises and add the MIT header?
>
> I am only currently authorized to donate Adobe-owned stuff to Apache.  If
> the externs turn out to be owned by CreateJS, I will have to delete them
> from the repo, and some non-Adobe person will have to figure out what to
> do, or I will have to go through an Adobe-side process of getting approved
> to donate this to CreateJS, which is more hassle than just manually
> creating the files.
>
>>
>> Even it you manually create the file it still may come down to an ASF
>> policy question rather than a legal question which may also need to be
>> resolved.
>
> Well, we'll see what Roy says.
>
> -Alex
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Josh Tynjala
In reply to this post by Alex Harui
I finally had a chance to give the "dual" branch a try with some of my
projects. Things seem to be working well for me!

- Josh

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/27/17, 12:56 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I finally had a chance to give the "dual" branch a try with some of my
>projects. Things seem to be working well for me!

Thanks for trying it.  I've just finished getting FlexJSStore's first
screen to look like it should.  I will be poking at more examples tomorrow
then I will push dual to develop on Sunday night unless I hear objections
or run into issues.

Thanks,
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Christofer Dutz
Hi Alex,

For the FlexJS summit it would be super-awesome if we could have the combined swcs feature. I think it would make at least the Maven build super-trivial.
Would this be a big thing to implement, now that you’re finished with the preparations?

Chris

Am 28.04.17, 09:05 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]>:

   
   
    On 4/27/17, 12:56 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >I finally had a chance to give the "dual" branch a try with some of my
    >projects. Things seem to be working well for me!
   
    Thanks for trying it.  I've just finished getting FlexJSStore's first
    screen to look like it should.  I will be poking at more examples tomorrow
    then I will push dual to develop on Sunday night unless I hear objections
    or run into issues.
   
    Thanks,
    -Alex
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Alex Harui


On 4/28/17, 12:27 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>For the FlexJS summit it would be super-awesome if we could have the
>combined swcs feature. I think it would make at least the Maven build
>super-trivial.
>Would this be a big thing to implement, now that you’re finished with the
>preparations?

Hi Christofer,

I'm not nearly done with preparations.  I think there will be enough bugs
to fix that we'll be lucky to get the release approved by the FlexJS
Summit with the feature set we have.  I also want to finish up the Cordova
Publisher first (in a non-release branch) as it may help me remain a
full-time contributor to this project.

However, the combined swcs feature might be a good thing to work on while
your only 3 hours ahead of me instead of the usual 8 or 9, so it could be
something we work on during the summit.

Thoughts?
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [LAST CALL] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.8.0

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz
Hi,

I just looked at the dual branch and it failing to compile via mvn. Is this a known issue or just broken for me?

[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Parent ............ SUCCESS [  0.396 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework .................... SUCCESS [  0.019 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Fonts ............. SUCCESS [  1.205 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Libs .............. SUCCESS [  0.240 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Libs: Core ........ SUCCESS [  4.707 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Libs: Binding ..... FAILURE [  0.039 s]
[INFO] Apache Flex - FlexJS: Framework: Libs: Collections . SKIPPED

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process (process-resource-bundles) on project Binding: Failed to resolve dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Missing:
[ERROR] ----------
[ERROR] 1) org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework:Core:swc:js:0.8.0-SNAPSHOT
[ERROR]
[ERROR] Try downloading the file manually from the project website.

I think it would be good to get this working before merging.

Thanks,
Justin
123456 ... 17
Loading...