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: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.3-incubating RC1
Date Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:28:31 GMT
Andrew and I just pushed updates to the license files that should address
all of the issues that Tim brought up.

Chris


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Andrew <andrew.va@gmail.com> wrote:

> Having the path in the LICENSE file seems like a good idea.
> Are there any tools used by other apache projects to generate the license
> file on release? It seems like it could be automated to avoid this
> situation in the future
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Chris Rohr <rohr.chris@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > The 3 you can't find are from the original blur console, they can be
> > > removed.  We will need to add the 3 MIT ones.  I can do this if you all
> > > want.  What is the process?  Does this hold up the release?
> >
> > Hey Chris,
> > Yes, licensing issues are blocking - it needs to get fixed before a
> > release so probably fix it as soon as you can and lets roll a new
> > candidate.  FWIW, the three that I noticed not being accounted for
> > were a spot check, not comprehensive.  I'd do a find . -name *.js and
> > just do a check against the license file with these guidelines[1] in
> > mind.
> >
> > On a side note, I'd really like to go back to putting the path (e.g.
> > ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/js/utils/jquery.event.gevent.js) on a
> > new line under the mention in LICENSE to aid in both find things that
> > should be accounted for and things that are in License but should not
> > be... thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --tim
> >
> > [1] - http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> >
>

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