[QUESTION]Is it OK to apply customized DOJO to geornimo from legal perspective ?

[Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>]

We rebuild dojo locally to only include the dojo components geronimo console
needs. It's a popular method to use dojo.   It will reduce server size,
startup time,and page loading time.   I don't know if we have any problem to
apply the patch[1] from legal's perspective.

I think we can't host these customized dojo source code,  but we could use
the way we did to dojo legacy[2]. to put customized dojo binary to local
repository.   And then include it to portal-driver or console-core at build
time.

Thoughts ?



https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.1.6/repository


[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5674

[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.1.6/repository/org/dojotoolkit/dojolegacy/0.4.3/



-- 
Shawn

Re: [QUESTION]Is it OK to apply customized DOJO to geornimo from legal perspective ?

[Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Kevan,

Just committed the patch to turnk@1138711

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
> > We rebuild dojo locally to only include the dojo components geronimo
> console needs. It's a popular method to use dojo.   It will reduce server
> size, startup time,and page loading time.   I don't know if we have any
> problem to apply the patch[1] from legal's perspective.
> >
> > I think we can't host these customized dojo source code,  but we could
> use the way we did to dojo legacy[2]. to put customized dojo binary to local
> repository.   And then include it to portal-driver or console-core at build
> time.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
>
> It should be ok, IMO. In general, it would be ideal if the customization
> process could be automated as part of our build. However, if that's not
> practical, then we can include the customized version in our svn.
>
> Dojo is dual licensed: BSD and Academic Free License 2.1.
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a describes the
> licenses which the ASF feels are similar to the Apache License 2.0.  BSD and
> AFL 3.0 are included in this list. Looking at AFL 2.1, I don't see anything
> that would be objectionable. We can verify this on legal discuss. If there
> is a problem with AFL 2.1, we can simply choose the BSD license.
>
> --kevan




-- 
Shawn

Re: [QUESTION]Is it OK to apply customized DOJO to geornimo from legal perspective ?

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:

> We rebuild dojo locally to only include the dojo components geronimo console needs. It's a popular method to use dojo.   It will reduce server size, startup time,and page loading time.   I don't know if we have any problem to apply the patch[1] from legal's perspective.  
> 
> I think we can't host these customized dojo source code,  but we could use the way we did to dojo legacy[2]. to put customized dojo binary to local repository.   And then include it to portal-driver or console-core at build time.
> 
> Thoughts ?

It should be ok, IMO. In general, it would be ideal if the customization process could be automated as part of our build. However, if that's not practical, then we can include the customized version in our svn. 

Dojo is dual licensed: BSD and Academic Free License 2.1. 

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a describes the licenses which the ASF feels are similar to the Apache License 2.0.  BSD and AFL 3.0 are included in this list. Looking at AFL 2.1, I don't see anything that would be objectionable. We can verify this on legal discuss. If there is a problem with AFL 2.1, we can simply choose the BSD license.

--kevan