cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Browserify JS is in
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2014 22:34:29 GMT
yeah we are *not* proposing to distribute browserify or its deps

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:

> What are we actually distributing?
>
> On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 12:36:03 PM Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:25:51 AM Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not actually worried about my disk filling up. Dependencies must
> be
> > > > vetted for appropriate licenses, so now there's more overhead here.
> If
> > we
> > > > need to make a change to the module system now we need to poor
> through
> > > docs
> > > > and make PRs instead of just editing our very small code-base.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This mix of MIT and 3-Clause BSD looks compatible to me.  It's weaker
> > than
> > > Apache, but not incompatible.  Do we really need to send this to legal?
> > > https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/blob/master/LICENSE
> > >
> > > There are people who can argue your other points better, but saying
> that
> > > the license is the overhead when you can find it in the repo?  I'm not
> > sure
> > > how we would have gotten this far if we had to check with legal for
> every
> > > single dependency.
> > >
> >
> > I meant that it depends on a bunch of other modules. Run license-checker
> on
> > browserify and you get: http://pastebin.com/XDMCTRRb
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message