flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Squiggly dictionaries license
Date Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:52:53 GMT
Hi,

> What do you think of the idea of not having the dictionaries in Git and
> having the release packaging script get them?

Means a release package script could be broken if the latest version don't work for some reason.
I don't think it vital that users have the most up to date dictionaries. I'm sure you have
a paper one on your shelf, do you buy a new one every year? But no objection if you add a
target to get the latest.

> 2) I would leave the names of the README file as it comes in the zip so
> there is less chance for confusion as to who wrote that file.

Fair enough.

> The reason I think this is because [1] says "add a pointer to the
> dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing
> its licensing", and the text attempts to follow the template given in [1].

The short license is optional so I took the middle ground, ie make it clear that they are
copyright / licensed someone else by looking at the top level licence file, but not including
the full READMEs. If people really want to know the full details they can look there.

> I know later it says: "NOTE: It's also possible to include the text of the
> 3rd party license within the LICENSE file. This is best reserved for short
> licenses.", but IMO, the license is all of the licenses in the README, not
> just the "top-level" one for Kevin so I consider this a long license.

Given Kevin's one is the license for the bundled bits, and then each bit has it own license,
it made sense to me to include it in the top level. Given we're bundling his work I'm sure
he would prefer if his name was mentioned at the top level, even if not doing so compiles
with our minimum legal rules, he may think that we were not crediting him.

Thanks,
Justin
Mime
View raw message