flex-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sword Dragon (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (FLEX-35255) Discrepancy between FAQ and license terms
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2017 15:05:51 GMT
Sword Dragon created FLEX-35255:

             Summary: Discrepancy between FAQ and license terms
                 Key: FLEX-35255
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35255
             Project: Apache Flex
          Issue Type: Documentation
    Affects Versions: Apache Flex 4.15.0
            Reporter: Sword Dragon

At http://flex.apache.org/dev-faq.html at the entry "Does Apache Flex cost money?" stands
the sentence "This allows you to use the SDK and any outputs of the SDK for personal and commercial
use with virtually no restrictions.". On evaluating this I believe this allows me to compile
SWF's with static linking against components of the SDK (like the RSL's) without restrictions.
But on making a look at the actual license I believe the above case would create a derivative
work and the restrictions of point 4 of the Apache license version 2.0 would apply.

Am I eventually missing/overlooking something? What is the actual intention in case of licensing
terms for these statically integrated parts of the SWF? Is eventually a linking exception

Also I'm wondering if -static-link-runtime-shared-libraries=false would be enough to solve
a potential license issue or if there are still other components that would still be statically
integrated into the SWF that may cause potential license issues. Also on dynamic linking with
Apache Flex 4.15.0 the produced SWF seems to not work anymore. I'm not sure why, maybe the
RSL's are just not available online for this version and I should just create another ticket
for it (eventually I have just to downgrade to Adobe Flex 4.6 and compile dynamically to gain
more safety?).

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message