incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Rohr <>
Subject Re: General Licensing Question about HTML content and the like
Date Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:27 GMT
Aaron - To your point yes this is possible.  If you look in blur-admin/app/assets/javascripts/hdfs_metrics.js
you will see that there looks like a comment for d3.js and flot.js.  In the Rails asset pipeline,
when in production mode, all of the javascript listed in that file will be combined (and minified)
into one javascript file to be served up to the browser.  So yes at run time there will be
multiple licenses in one js file.  A side note to this is whether the minification of the
javascript will remove the license comments.  I will have to check on that though.

Tim - My question is to figure out which type of comment to use.  In any of the .haml files
inside of blur-admin/app/views I can either add a HAML comment or an HTML comment.  If I add
a HAML comment then it will be in the source but when Rails renders the page the markup will
not include the license.  If I add an HTML comment it will be preserved post rendering.  The
same goes for any of the.scss files in blur-admin/app/assets/stylesheets, I can either add
a SASS comment or a CSS comment, where the same thing as the HAML will occur.

Thanks again,

On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Chris Rohr <> 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?
> 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 <> 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 <> 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
> >

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