incubator-esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yoji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Date Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:40:21 GMT
Thanks Joe.
I committed the changes now.

/Anne


On 8. feb. 2010, at 11.05, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> 
>> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yojibee@gmail.com>
>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 7:24:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
>> 
>> Joe,
>> 
>> Isn't the LICENSE file only for the Apache License?
> 
> No.  It's a file that should contain copies of ALL licenses in
> your overall distribution/eventual release.
> 
>> Shouldn't we create a MIT-LICENSE.txt file as the copyright states?
>> * Copyright (c) 2009 AUTHORS.txt (http://jqueryui.com/about)
>> * Licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt) license.
> 
> I haven't looked at where this stuff is located in ESME's svn tree,
> but there should probably be such a file alongside the jquery source
> file(s).  That doesn't change the fact that the LICENSE file
> at the base of the ESME distribution gets a copy of it as well.
> 
>> 
>> /Anne
>> 
>> 
>> On 5. feb. 2010, at 19.08, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 
>>> With 3rd party works, you don't move the copyright notices.
>>> You copy them, along with the license, into the LICENSE file.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe 
>>>> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 9:51:16 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> For the two files with dual licensing you just leave the MIT in and remove

>> the 
>>>> GPL.
>>>> Quote from the legal-discuss thread:
>>>> "Ans: When including that work's licensing, state which license is being
used 
>> 
>>>> and include only the license that you have chosen."
>>>> 
>>>> Now my next question would be if we can move those copyright notices to the

>>>> NOTICE file?
>>>> 
>>>> /Anne
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 5. feb. 2010, at 15.27, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Just finished cleaning up our SVN.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Added licenses where needed and threw out files that weren't used. I
>>>>> added the latest rat listing to the JIRA item. We currently just have
>>>>> two files with a licensing issue:
>>>>> 
>>>>> !????? src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.min.js
>>>>> !????? src/main/webapp/style/smoothness/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.css
>>>>> 
>>>>> Both have the dual licensing:
>>>>> 
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * jQuery UI 1.7.2
>>>>> *
>>>>> * Copyright (c) 2009 AUTHORS.txt (http://jqueryui.com/about)
>>>>> * Dual licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt)
>>>>> * and GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses.
>>>>> *
>>>>> * http://docs.jquery.com/UI
>>>>> */
>>>>> 
>>>>> I looked at the thread that Anne mentioned and didn't really find a
>>>>> final decision.
>>>>> 
>>>>> @mentors: any suggestions
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did some quick testing in the UI. Maybe others can test with the
>>>>> latest code drop to se if anything else is broken.
>>>>> 
>>>>> D.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A discussion on legal-discuss pointed me to this discussion about
dual 
>>>> licensing, interesting to read:
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/b46v73m6thhm5zw4
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /Anne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 20.03, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We probably have to clean up the JQuery-related script files
any way -
>>>>>>> get the most recent version, etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Richard Hirsch 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Bertrand mentioned in the first post in this thread, this
is
>>>>>>>> probably the way to go...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Ethan Jewett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since JQuery is MIT licensed, why can't we just include
it (unchanged)
>>>>>>>>> in the distribution as third-party code?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ethan
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Richard Hirsch 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Looks cool. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Only problem is that I didn't find a maven repoistory
with the JQuery 
>>>> files.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: maven-soultion, I was thinking about
JQuery stuff.  If its MIT
>>>>>>>>>>>> license is ok, then we just have to see the
instructions on dealing
>>>>>>>>>>>> with third party works....
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, in Sling we have a similar case with dojo,
and what we do is
>>>>>>>>>>> download it at build time, and store in a local
cache for future
>>>>>>>>>>> builds.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> See the "Dynamically download the Dojo Toolkit"
bit in
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/trunk/contrib/extensions/dojo/pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message