cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Browserify JS is in
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:38:30 GMT
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