You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/05 15:27:28 UTC
Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...)
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>.
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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>