geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [QUESTION]Is it OK to apply customized DOJO to geornimo from legal perspective ?
Date Thu, 23 Jun 2011 02:39:27 GMT
Thanks, Kevan,

Just committed the patch to turnk@1138711

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
> > We rebuild dojo locally to only include the dojo components geronimo
> console needs. It's a popular method to use dojo.   It will reduce server
> size, startup time,and page loading time.   I don't know if we have any
> problem to apply the patch[1] from legal's perspective.
> >
> > I think we can't host these customized dojo source code,  but we could
> use the way we did to dojo legacy[2]. to put customized dojo binary to local
> repository.   And then include it to portal-driver or console-core at build
> time.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
>
> It should be ok, IMO. In general, it would be ideal if the customization
> process could be automated as part of our build. However, if that's not
> practical, then we can include the customized version in our svn.
>
> Dojo is dual licensed: BSD and Academic Free License 2.1.
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a describes the
> licenses which the ASF feels are similar to the Apache License 2.0.  BSD and
> AFL 3.0 are included in this list. Looking at AFL 2.1, I don't see anything
> that would be objectionable. We can verify this on legal discuss. If there
> is a problem with AFL 2.1, we can simply choose the BSD license.
>
> --kevan




-- 
Shawn

Mime
View raw message