esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:08:24 GMT
With 3rd party works, you don't move the copyright notices.
You copy them, along with the license, into the LICENSE file.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Anne Kathrine Petter√łe <yojibee@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 9:51:16 AM
> Subject: Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> For the two files with dual licensing you just leave the MIT in and remove the 
> GPL.
> Quote from the legal-discuss thread:
> "Ans: When including that work's licensing, state which license is being used 
> and include only the license that you have chosen."
> 
> Now my next question would be if we can move those copyright notices to the 
> NOTICE file?
> 
> /Anne
> 
> 
> On 5. feb. 2010, at 15.27, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> 
> > Just finished cleaning up our SVN.
> > 
> > Added licenses where needed and threw out files that weren't used. I
> > added the latest rat listing to the JIRA item. We currently just have
> > two files with a licensing issue:
> > 
> > !????? src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.min.js
> > !????? src/main/webapp/style/smoothness/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.css
> > 
> > Both have the dual licensing:
> > 
> > /*
> > * jQuery UI 1.7.2
> > *
> > * Copyright (c) 2009 AUTHORS.txt (http://jqueryui.com/about)
> > * Dual licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt)
> > * and GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses.
> > *
> > * http://docs.jquery.com/UI
> > */
> > 
> > I looked at the thread that Anne mentioned and didn't really find a
> > final decision.
> > 
> > @mentors: any suggestions
> > 
> > I did some quick testing in the UI. Maybe others can test with the
> > latest code drop to se if anything else is broken.
> > 
> > D.
> > 
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Anne Kathrine Petter√łe
> > wrote:
> >> A discussion on legal-discuss pointed me to this discussion about dual 
> licensing, interesting to read:
> >> http://markmail.org/thread/b46v73m6thhm5zw4
> >> 
> >> /Anne
> >> 
> >> On 29. jan. 2010, at 20.03, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> >> 
> >>> We probably have to clean up the JQuery-related script files any way -
> >>> get the most recent version, etc.
> >>> 
> >>> D.
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Richard Hirsch 
> wrote:
> >>>> As Bertrand mentioned in the first post in this thread, this is
> >>>> probably the way to go...
> >>>> 
> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Ethan Jewett wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Since JQuery is MIT licensed, why can't we just include it (unchanged)
> >>>>> in the distribution as third-party code?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Ethan
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Richard Hirsch 
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Looks cool. Thanks.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Only problem is that I didn't find a maven repoistory with the
JQuery 
> files.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch 
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Re: maven-soultion, I was thinking about JQuery stuff.
 If its MIT
> >>>>>>>> license is ok, then we just have to see the instructions
on dealing
> >>>>>>>> with third party works....
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Ok, in Sling we have a similar case with dojo, and what
we do is
> >>>>>>> download it at build time, and store in a local cache for
future
> >>>>>>> builds.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> See the "Dynamically download the Dojo Toolkit" bit in
> >>>>>>> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/trunk/contrib/extensions/dojo/pom.xml
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -Bertrand
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> 



      

Mime
View raw message