You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2010/01/29 10:23:01 UTC
LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Him
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>
> Here are few examples below:
>
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be found.
If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
-Bertrand
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Sig Rinde <si...@rinde.com>.
Looks like I'm in for some serious bug-testing soon :)
So, just tell me when you've finished messing around so I can mess it
up - Linux and OS X here !
On 29 January 2010 11:28, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> accordian isn't used but tabs are...
>
> maven-based solution might be more useful
>
> On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we should just throw out the Accordion too, we aren't using it
>> currently anyway. (it was part of the UI started last year)
>> Better be safe than sorry.
>>
>> Thanks for going through this.
>>
>> /Anne
>>
>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.53, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can delete the following files can be deleted:
>>>
>>> wz_tooltip.js + all the other js files that start with tip_
>>>
>>> The files starting with "ui." appear to be jQuery scripts (
>>> http://docs.jquery.com/UI/Accordion) but do not have a license header
>>> in our SVN. If you look at this link
>>> (http://jqueryui.com/latest/ui/ui.core.js), you will see that they are
>>> dual licensed.
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Get rid of them immediately is all I have to say.
>>>> We cannot have LGPL licensed scripts in our code.
>>>>
>>>> /Anne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
>>>>> Most are linked to the old UI any way....
>>>>>
>>>>> D.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Him
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>>>>>>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>>>>>>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are few examples below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
>>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>>>> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
>>>>>> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
>>>>>> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
>>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be
>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
>>>>>> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
>>>>>> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
On 29. jan. 2010, at 13.30, 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.
>
> BTW, don't know whether jquery is even necessary with new UI....
Depends how much we want to do, but yes we do need it. Maybe not now, but down the line.
For instance for showing threaded conversations inline (like Facebook currently does it in their news feed)
>
> On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't want to have *any* LGPL/GPL stuff in our code.
>> I'd rather try to see if we can find other libraries/scripts to use for our
>> UI.
>>
>> /Anne
>>
>>
>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 12.10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...maven-based solution might be more useful...
>>>
>>> If what you mean is maven automatically downloading GPL/LGPL stuff at
>>> build time, that's not ok.
>>>
>>> Unless there's a big prominent warning that people cannot miss, and
>>> then only if those components are optional.
>>>
>>> The key is that whatever is required to use what we release (which is
>>> source code - binary releases are a convenience only) must have an
>>> acceptable license according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> This is just to clarify for everybody, I don't mean you're doing
>>> things wrong ;-)
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Sure, no problem.
On 6. feb. 2010, at 06.05, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> @Anne could please add the copyright notice to the LICENSE file. I'm
> not going to have access to SVN next week.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> 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 <yo...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
@Anne could please add the copyright notice to the LICENSE file. I'm
not going to have access to SVN next week.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> 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 <yo...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Joe.
I committed the changes now.
/Anne
On 8. feb. 2010, at 11.05, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Joe,
Isn't the LICENSE file only for the Apache License?
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.
/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 <yo...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
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 <yo...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
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
> <yo...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <es...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
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
<yo...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <es...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <es...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <es...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
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 <es...@gmail.com> 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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Ethan Jewett <es...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@gmail.com> 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 <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
Looks cool. Thanks.
Only problem is that I didn't find a maven repoistory with the JQuery files.
On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> 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
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
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.
BTW, don't know whether jquery is even necessary with new UI....
On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to have *any* LGPL/GPL stuff in our code.
> I'd rather try to see if we can find other libraries/scripts to use for our
> UI.
>
> /Anne
>
>
> On 29. jan. 2010, at 12.10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ...maven-based solution might be more useful...
>>
>> If what you mean is maven automatically downloading GPL/LGPL stuff at
>> build time, that's not ok.
>>
>> Unless there's a big prominent warning that people cannot miss, and
>> then only if those components are optional.
>>
>> The key is that whatever is required to use what we release (which is
>> source code - binary releases are a convenience only) must have an
>> acceptable license according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> This is just to clarify for everybody, I don't mean you're doing
>> things wrong ;-)
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
I don't want to have *any* LGPL/GPL stuff in our code.
I'd rather try to see if we can find other libraries/scripts to use for our UI.
/Anne
On 29. jan. 2010, at 12.10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...maven-based solution might be more useful...
>
> If what you mean is maven automatically downloading GPL/LGPL stuff at
> build time, that's not ok.
>
> Unless there's a big prominent warning that people cannot miss, and
> then only if those components are optional.
>
> The key is that whatever is required to use what we release (which is
> source code - binary releases are a convenience only) must have an
> acceptable license according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> This is just to clarify for everybody, I don't mean you're doing
> things wrong ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...maven-based solution might be more useful...
If what you mean is maven automatically downloading GPL/LGPL stuff at
build time, that's not ok.
Unless there's a big prominent warning that people cannot miss, and
then only if those components are optional.
The key is that whatever is required to use what we release (which is
source code - binary releases are a convenience only) must have an
acceptable license according to http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
This is just to clarify for everybody, I don't mean you're doing
things wrong ;-)
-Bertrand
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
accordian isn't used but tabs are...
maven-based solution might be more useful
On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should just throw out the Accordion too, we aren't using it
> currently anyway. (it was part of the UI started last year)
> Better be safe than sorry.
>
> Thanks for going through this.
>
> /Anne
>
> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.53, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>
>> I think we can delete the following files can be deleted:
>>
>> wz_tooltip.js + all the other js files that start with tip_
>>
>> The files starting with "ui." appear to be jQuery scripts (
>> http://docs.jquery.com/UI/Accordion) but do not have a license header
>> in our SVN. If you look at this link
>> (http://jqueryui.com/latest/ui/ui.core.js), you will see that they are
>> dual licensed.
>>
>> D.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Get rid of them immediately is all I have to say.
>>> We cannot have LGPL licensed scripts in our code.
>>>
>>> /Anne
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
>>>> Most are linked to the old UI any way....
>>>>
>>>> D.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Him
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>>>>>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>>>>>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are few examples below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>>>>>
>>>>> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>>> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>>>>>
>>>>> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
>>>>> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
>>>>> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>>>>>
>>>>> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be
>>>>> found.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
>>>>> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
>>>>> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
I think we should just throw out the Accordion too, we aren't using it currently anyway. (it was part of the UI started last year)
Better be safe than sorry.
Thanks for going through this.
/Anne
On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.53, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> I think we can delete the following files can be deleted:
>
> wz_tooltip.js + all the other js files that start with tip_
>
> The files starting with "ui." appear to be jQuery scripts (
> http://docs.jquery.com/UI/Accordion) but do not have a license header
> in our SVN. If you look at this link
> (http://jqueryui.com/latest/ui/ui.core.js), you will see that they are
> dual licensed.
>
> D.
>
>
>
>
> On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Get rid of them immediately is all I have to say.
>> We cannot have LGPL licensed scripts in our code.
>>
>> /Anne
>>
>>
>> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>>
>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
>>> Most are linked to the old UI any way....
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Him
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>>>>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>>>>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are few examples below:
>>>>>
>>>>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>>>>
>>>> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>>>>
>>>> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
>>>> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
>>>> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>>>>
>>>> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
>>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>>>>
>>>> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be found.
>>>>
>>>> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>>>>
>>>> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
>>>> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
>>>> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>>>>
>>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>>
>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
I think we can delete the following files can be deleted:
wz_tooltip.js + all the other js files that start with tip_
The files starting with "ui." appear to be jQuery scripts (
http://docs.jquery.com/UI/Accordion) but do not have a license header
in our SVN. If you look at this link
(http://jqueryui.com/latest/ui/ui.core.js), you will see that they are
dual licensed.
D.
On 1/29/10, Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Get rid of them immediately is all I have to say.
> We cannot have LGPL licensed scripts in our code.
>
> /Anne
>
>
> On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>
>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
>> Most are linked to the old UI any way....
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Him
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>>>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>>>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>>>
>>>> Here are few examples below:
>>>>
>>>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>>>
>>> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>>>
>>> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
>>> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
>>> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>>>
>>> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
>>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>>>
>>> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be found.
>>>
>>> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>>>
>>> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
>>> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
>>> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>>>
>>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>
>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Anne Kathrine Petterøe <yo...@gmail.com>.
Get rid of them immediately is all I have to say.
We cannot have LGPL licensed scripts in our code.
/Anne
On 29. jan. 2010, at 10.40, Richard Hirsch wrote:
>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>
> +1
>
> I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
> Most are linked to the old UI any way....
>
> D.
>
> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Him
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>>
>>> Here are few examples below:
>>>
>>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>>
>> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>>
>> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
>> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
>> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>>
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>>
>> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>>
>> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be found.
>>
>> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>>
>> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
>> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
>> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>>
>> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
>I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
>sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
+1
I think many of these files are old ones that are no longer necessary.
Most are linked to the old UI any way....
D.
On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Him
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> ...We also scripts in SVN with various copyrights. What do we need and
>> what can we toss. Is there a way to pull in these scripts via the
>> build process so that we are not part of our SVN?
>>
>> Here are few examples below:
>>
>> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-1.3.2.min.js?view=markup).
>
> This one's fine, MIT license is ok according to
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> but the license header must remain intact, see "third-party works" in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/tip_balloon.js?view=markup
>
> This one's unclear, but according to the next one which is from the
> same source I'd guess it's LGPL, so not good.
> Anyway it doesn't indicate permission to redistribute - to be checked.
>
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/esme/trunk/server/src/main/webapp/scripts/wz_tooltip.js?view=markup
>
> This one's LGPL as indicated in the header, so it has to go (see
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
>
> If it's required for ESME to work, an alternate solution has to be found.
>
> If it's optional, instructing users to download it separately is fine.
>
> Under NO circumstances should license headers of third-party code be
> removed in Apache code repositories - if you see any more LGPL/GPL
> stuff in ESME's SVN please discuss that here.
>
> I have created ESME-154 and made it a blocker for Release 1.0, to make
> sure a general review of such code is done before the release.
>
> -Bertrand
>