www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Date Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:52:12 GMT
I'm not a lawyer and I am definitely not one of the senior Apaches around here,
so take my word with a grain of salt ;)

I don't think that would preserving headers would be a blocker. If your users
really want to have these headers in, they could post-process your output
and add them back. After all, they are their headers.

Even without fully preserving comments, it shouldn't be too hard to add a
configuration option to the transpiler to prefix each transformed file with
the contents of some file or variable and your users might appreciate that.

That said, I just remembered one thing to consider: if your transpiled code
contains substantial amounts of code that are not immediately generated from
the input but rather constitute something like a runtime, than that runtime
should probably bear an Apache header. I would assume that any such a runtime
would be shipped in separate files to keep a strong separation between
"transpiled" and "supplemental" code.

Cheers,

-- Richard

On 06.09.2015, at 16:34, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> Thanks Richard and Paul.  Looks like some transpilers offer the option of
> copying over source headers.
> 
> One last question: one the fact that the Flex compiler does not currently
> do that be a release blocker or can we add that in a future release?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> -Alex
> 
> On 9/6/15, 2:07 AM, "Richard Eckart de Castilho" <rec@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Apache Flex has a cross-compiler (aka transpiler).  It takes
>>>> ActionScript
>>>> as an input source language and cross-compiles it into JavaScript.  If
>>>> you
>>>> are familiar with TypeScript and its compiler, it is pretty similar.
>>>> The
>>>> binary package for the compiler contains some of these cross-compiled
>>>> .js
>>>> files as output.  We are pondering whether we should add ASF headers to
>>>> these files or some header like: “Generated by Apache Flex
>>>> Cross-Compiler”
>>>> or leave it as is.
>>>> 
>>>> IMO, it isn’t source.  Yes, folks can modify it and should be able to
>>>> do
>>>> so under AL.  Thoughts, opinions, precedence?
>>> 
>>> IMHO the output of the transpiler should be under the same license as
>>> the
>>> input, not under the AL. So if you can preserve a license header (or
>>> basically
>>> any comments from the input file) during the transformation, I guess
>>> that
>>> would be the best option. Of course adding a "This is code generated
>>> from
>>> file X by Y version Z on DATE" would be useful. It could also be useful
>>> to allow users to turn the addition of such a header off or to allow
>>> them customizing it.
>> 
>> Regarding precedence: I guess look at any macro preprocessor for any
>> language
>> or even any compiler. Some vendors impose limits on the output of the
>> transformer
>> (I believe Microsoft does it with some versions Visual Studio), but I
>> haven't seen
>> such limits on any FOSS transformers so far.
>> 
>> -- Richard
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message