incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Rohr <rohr.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: General Licensing Question about HTML content and the like
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:13:25 GMT
Thanks Tim and Patrick,

I will go ahead and make sure all source files (which for the rails put
will be shipped in a distro anyways not the compiled) have the correct
license and and make sure everything runs correctly.  Aaron has added the
license to most of the files already I just need to make sure they are in
valid comment blocks for that type of file.

I am also generating the list of libraries as in going through for the
notice file.

I'm also thinking that when the console does get included and becomes a
fully Blur component, we should not try to package the rails part (if it
stays rails) as a production ready tarball.  From my experience with
distributing rails apps as products, it is definitely one thing they didn't
make easy like a war file is.  You run into a lot of problems with the
asset pipeline and whether or not the app should run at the root URL or a
sub-uri.  Anyways, sorry for the tangent, my point is we should build the
agent jar distro for them (very similar to what is needed for blur) and for
the rails bundle the libraries, but don't precompile and give instuctions
on how that can be done.

Thanks again and ill get on updating the license info.

Chris

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Patrick Hunt wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Chris Rohr <rohr.chris@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > I'm trying to help with adding licenses to blur console.  Question
> though,
> > does the license need to just be in the source or in anything that is
> > compiled too (i.e. templates that compile to HTML, scss files that
> compile
> > to CSS.). Is the license required to show up in both or just the source?
>
> Hi Chris. Hm... See is this helps at all:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-license-headers
> specifically "Copyright may not subsist in a document which is
> generated by an transformation from an original. In which case, the
> license header may be unnecessary."
>
> That said you should typically try to get the header into any file
> that's shipped.
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Aaron McCurry wrote:
> >
> >> Ok.  Thanks Patrick!
> >>
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The general guideline is to add a header for each/every possible file.
> >> > This includes html, etc...
> >> >
> >> > Some files cannot contain the header (e.g. sample input files for
> >> > tests, confluence markup docs which don't support comments, etc...)
> >> > and in some cases generated files. Otw you should try to add the
> >> > header.
> >> >
> >> > Patrick
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > I'm trying to cleanup our rat issues for our upcoming release.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm assuming that files types like html, css, js, etc do not have
> to be
> >> > > licensed in the file due to the extra overhead that would incur in
> the
> >> > > runtime applications.  Such as bandwidth for dowloading the Apache
> >> > license
> >> > > over and over again.
> >> > >
> >> > > Is there general guidelines for this?  Should we include an Apache
> >> footer
> >> > > in the html pages that link about to the license?
> >> > >
> >> > > Aaron
> >> >
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message