You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2015/09/06 07:09:46 UTC
Headers for generated JavaScript files
Hi,
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?
Thanks in advance,
-Alex
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net>.
My understanding as a recipient is that having the AL would give me an explicit right to modify. However, can you be sure it is under AL an you do not apply it JS that is a translation of proprietary code? I think there's a lot of proprietary Action Script in the world.
Paul
-- fat fingered on my z10 --
Message d'origine
De: Alex Harui
Envoyé: Sonntag, 6. September 2015 14:10
À: legal-discuss@apache.org
Répondre à: legal-discuss@apache.org
Objet: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Hi,
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?
Thanks in advance,
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 06/09/2015 16:03, Alex Harui wrote:
> Actually, the better question might be:
>
> Is the fact that we have examples and samples in the binary package of
> ActionScript files with AL headers but the JS output in the package does
> not have headers a release blocker? Must we add this feature to the
> compiler and/or post-process the JS files before releasing this binary
> package?
I don't see that as a blocker.
I'd put it in the category of things I'd want to fix before the next
release. If this issue was raised during a release vote I wouldn't see
it as something that would block the release but if a release wasn't
already in progress I'd want to fix it before starting the next release.
As an aside, I think the 'Generated by ... from ...' header is the way
to go. Tomcat has generated code in its expression language parser which
is included in the source bundle. Those files do not have license
headers. They have a one-line header that says which tool they were
generated with.
Mark
>
> Thanks in advance,
> -Alex
>
> On 9/6/15, 7:52 AM, "Richard Eckart de Castilho" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 <ah...@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" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Actually, the better question might be:
Is the fact that we have examples and samples in the binary package of
ActionScript files with AL headers but the JS output in the package does
not have headers a release blocker? Must we add this feature to the
compiler and/or post-process the JS files before releasing this binary
package?
Thanks in advance,
-Alex
On 9/6/15, 7:52 AM, "Richard Eckart de Castilho" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>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 <ah...@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" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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
>
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
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 <ah...@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" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
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" <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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
>
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho
<re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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.
Quite the contrary: GNU Bison, for example, has a very colorful history of
taking an activist position on that very issue:
http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
On 06.09.2015, at 11:05, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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
Re: Headers for generated JavaScript files
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
On 06.09.2015, at 07:09, Alex Harui <ah...@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.
Cheers,
-- Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org