You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> on 2012/08/28 15:01:38 UTC
Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
On 08/03/2012 09:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2012 4:15 AM, "Olemis Lang" <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> NOTICE , LICENSE and other files will only need to
>>>> mention that file (<= I'm hoping we can do that).
>>> There is no need for these files to refer to a proposed TRAC_VERSION
>>> file. It is sufficient to state "portions developed by..." (as they do
>>> now).
>> I said so in order to say something like this in e.g. NOTICE file .
>>
>> "A modified copy of Trac is included in this source release package.
>> Exact version of Trac may be found in TRAC_VERSION file" ... etc , etc
> Ooooh... I like that! +1
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Given that this was liked...
At the moment the NOTICE file states:
Trac - licensed under the BSD License
This product include software (Trac) developed by
Edgewall Software (http://trac.edgewall.org/)
Are we happy with fixing the typo in the above and appending the
following to the trac section of the NOTICE file:
A modified copy of Trac is included in this source
release package. The exact version of Trac may be
found in the trac/TRAC_VERSION file.
It might also be nice for the bootstrap part of the NOTICE file to be
consistent with the rest - I think it should read:
Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
This product includes software (bootstrap) developed by
Twitter (http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/)
to specify the license we understand it to use more carefully.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
At least in headers in bootstrap-*.js files I read
/* ==========================================================
* bootstrap-affix.js v2.1.0
* http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/javascript.html#affix
* ==========================================================
* Copyright 2012 Twitter, Inc.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
* ========================================================== */
... short header in css files though ...
On 8/28/12, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 02:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 28.08.2012 15:31, Gary Martin wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2012 02:11 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 28.08.2012 15:01, Gary Martin wrote:
>>>>> Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
>>>> What is the APLv2 License? You don't have to copy typos from the
>>>> Bootstrap authors. :)
>>>>
>>>> It's "the Apache License, version 2", same as for Bloodhound.
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>> Heh.. sorry. My typo.
>> The typo appears in Bootstrap's GitHub logs related to their LICENSE
>> file. The file itself appears to be the original ALv2 as published on
>> the Apache site. Haven't run a diff, though; it might not be too bad an
>> idea to do that.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>
> Oh, well, I didn't check to see if they had also made that mistake.. I
> am only saying that I did not copy the mistake from them as I was
> avoiding writing the whole thing out. I will try to be more careful in
> future.
>
> Other than that, I assume that Bootstrap's typo do not cause us any
> problem. From a quick look around the download, they sometimes only
> mentioning http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt but there are
> cases of mentioning Apache License v2.0 and Apache License, version 2.0.
> I cannot see their intent being questioned here but, as we are committed
> to attempting to get as close to perfection as possible with our
> compliance with any licensing issues, I am happy to take some time to
> look at this further if necessary.
>
> Anyway, I think I may as well make the changes I mentioned at the
> beginning of the thread (hopefully without any more typos) and see what
> happens.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
>
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
Re: Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 08/28/2012 02:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.08.2012 15:31, Gary Martin wrote:
>> On 08/28/2012 02:11 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 28.08.2012 15:01, Gary Martin wrote:
>>>> Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
>>> What is the APLv2 License? You don't have to copy typos from the
>>> Bootstrap authors. :)
>>>
>>> It's "the Apache License, version 2", same as for Bloodhound.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>> Heh.. sorry. My typo.
> The typo appears in Bootstrap's GitHub logs related to their LICENSE
> file. The file itself appears to be the original ALv2 as published on
> the Apache site. Haven't run a diff, though; it might not be too bad an
> idea to do that.
>
> -- Brane
>
Oh, well, I didn't check to see if they had also made that mistake.. I
am only saying that I did not copy the mistake from them as I was
avoiding writing the whole thing out. I will try to be more careful in
future.
Other than that, I assume that Bootstrap's typo do not cause us any
problem. From a quick look around the download, they sometimes only
mentioning http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt but there are
cases of mentioning Apache License v2.0 and Apache License, version 2.0.
I cannot see their intent being questioned here but, as we are committed
to attempting to get as close to perfection as possible with our
compliance with any licensing issues, I am happy to take some time to
look at this further if necessary.
Anyway, I think I may as well make the changes I mentioned at the
beginning of the thread (hopefully without any more typos) and see what
happens.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 28.08.2012 15:31, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 02:11 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 28.08.2012 15:01, Gary Martin wrote:
>>> Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
>> What is the APLv2 License? You don't have to copy typos from the
>> Bootstrap authors. :)
>>
>> It's "the Apache License, version 2", same as for Bloodhound.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>
> Heh.. sorry. My typo.
The typo appears in Bootstrap's GitHub logs related to their LICENSE
file. The file itself appears to be the original ALv2 as published on
the Apache site. Haven't run a diff, though; it might not be too bad an
idea to do that.
-- Brane
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Re: Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 08/28/2012 02:11 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.08.2012 15:01, Gary Martin wrote:
>> Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
> What is the APLv2 License? You don't have to copy typos from the
> Bootstrap authors. :)
>
> It's "the Apache License, version 2", same as for Bloodhound.
>
> -- Brane
>
Heh.. sorry. My typo.
Re: Change to NOTICE file? (Was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound
0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1))
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 28.08.2012 15:01, Gary Martin wrote:
> Bootstrap - licensed under the APLv2 License
What is the APLv2 License? You don't have to copy typos from the
Bootstrap authors. :)
It's "the Apache License, version 2", same as for Bloodhound.
-- Brane
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download