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 Sun, 09 Jun 2013 23:51:00 GMT
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?

Thanks
Chris

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:;>>
> 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:;>>
> 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