Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F223A10750 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 99170 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2014 20:36:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 99131 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2014 20:36:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 99118 invoked by uid 99); 12 Dec 2014 20:36:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:36:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of agrieve@google.com designates 209.85.218.42 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.42] (HELO mail-oi0-f42.google.com) (209.85.218.42) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:35:57 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id v63so5763365oia.29 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:34:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=w4Z+GvDsfvCWrgij/EIh3xDH9wVzw15t5uWKp2CHNug=; b=ek/cUH1rRDhzqJn6V02+QJNm2fV9ZziphJ9cP/EtQBtt9c58fV2gMv90LZ0Crm0diD LTY/V0d5M/KJjCHVb056DfKWr+9ECRJMHeap5G4kpq8pFwUxNv7fwapC710I3CtHvGKV NfNK5zOck9eCZ6PdjTa3h4RwLbeLUuei7X1qw2JneyBb2mQ94+yk3RlSj2BEWty8wK3V ZLp7au4tb1o4G9QmVdS6ZrgtoBgqaOBShunonUxkFuhDVQBbWBxxMwjW9+ccL2Dph9+U MUf6+bJEhcyVL8Kj9dIi2awuV2CJofD803fN37RcHk2C+9TIwr4ht0dddb2e46Run0/v kjfg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=w4Z+GvDsfvCWrgij/EIh3xDH9wVzw15t5uWKp2CHNug=; b=mpgLMoOYJ6M30WLpwop+nuYHrYgWbpMY0gUHh7ATvS3bGas6S+TRMm/S4AfhK7YFWD GC7PF4vLL29vRf3tIvm3y/I9s5H3gc1+jP0asNIjzfpe3+V06Ol4ef2ZfgKsm1LDIW5e hy8s3Y9VO7gmV0zquLMsRSX9SciFxQFXFp4gY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=w4Z+GvDsfvCWrgij/EIh3xDH9wVzw15t5uWKp2CHNug=; b=cySVzcBBa7HTmBP4+B7R6+zEns4jyx9OmfeIgOfqjNgZTn8OFpLN622HMtt/eWikda LG5HVFNjm1zfSGjMgvOFouqmfZJi2ljlt+zD36qKVOhQ4oUh7SIrVS3DHw/L7c9O2vQp joafiBR4B2BkkIWs0JYePI7pBjM2A1QnRdHALTmVp+KtTY8SeFKFZrv/cLsB21V9KZm1 Ur+OZ43HPp70MFHt84mHxbmKQfKkLDyRkJb9MZle4OFmErBCpc2pPxY2DmL0TNTTmVZN McerMwVzDy80sqirTKfz7f3jf2kA5YVBwWcEG4EmAO82h0BM8yoQ2YHkA8XArl+BLujW JglQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLwe4hRPpjammdK2RqM4768rFFFz2NNnGNorrycUZ3SMDagRA9n3+36ZhVkxdvBxAIs2fd X-Received: by 10.182.105.163 with SMTP id gn3mr11516078obb.9.1418416447315; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:34:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: agrieve@google.com Received: by 10.182.222.106 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:33:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Grieve Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:33:47 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tFNEy-p6EyFmrE7jx6o4UMNexcU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Browserify JS is in To: dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015382727c82bf050a0ad0d3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e015382727c82bf050a0ad0d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Joe Bowser wrote: > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:25:51 AM Andrew Grieve > 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 --089e015382727c82bf050a0ad0d3--