You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> on 2013/02/14 12:51:57 UTC
License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
ui/lib/require.js?
It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
complain.
Commit:
commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
Regards.
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
No, the file suggests this was already work of the requirejs project
from "The Dojo Foundation" with their licenses.
Since MIT license is available, it's compatible AL, but we still need
to attribute them in LICENSE.
Regards.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
>
> /** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
> * @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All Rights Reserved.
> * Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
> * see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details
> */
> //Not using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
> //problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
> /*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */
> /*global window, navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
>
>
> This needs to be changed to the Apache licensing , right ?
>
> Regards,
> Pranav
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rohit Yadav
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:22 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Brian Federle
> Subject: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for ui/lib/require.js?
> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't complain.
>
> Commit:
> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
>
> Regards.
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
>
> /** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
> * @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All Rights Reserved.
> * Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
> * see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details
> */
> //Not using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
> //problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
> /*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */
> /*global window, navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
>
>
> This needs to be changed to the Apache licensing , right ?
>
NO - we must never change the license for code which is not ours.
The author(s) set the license, and we must honor that.
Folks, please try and communicate about adding dependencies/libraries
like this BEFORE it hits the repo.
--David
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:49:49AM -0800, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:10 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Brian Federle
> > Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:38:11PM +0530, Pranav Saxena wrote:
> > > Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
> > >
> > > /** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
> > > * @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All
> > Rights Reserved.
> > > * Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
> > > * see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details */ //Not
> > > using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
> > > //problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
> > > /*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */ /*global window,
> > > navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
> > >
> >
> > I'm assuming that we have consensus that this script should be added, unless
> > anyone objects.
> >
> > I'll look at fixing the legal docs, but please try to warn before adding something
> > new next time.
> >
> [Animesh>] Certainly we need to check the licensing before we add new dependencies. How do we handle this particular issue?
Well, the info needs to go into the tools/whisker/descriptor*.xml files,
and we need to re-generate the LICENSE and NOTICE at the top and in the
whisker folder. We also need to add this file to the root pom's RAT
exclude list.
Like I said, I'll look at doing it if people want. I'll be able to do
it tomorrow morning EST.
-chip
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:10 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Brian Federle
> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:38:11PM +0530, Pranav Saxena wrote:
> > Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
> >
> > /** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
> > * @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All
> Rights Reserved.
> > * Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
> > * see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details */ //Not
> > using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
> > //problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
> > /*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */ /*global window,
> > navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
> >
>
> I'm assuming that we have consensus that this script should be added, unless
> anyone objects.
>
> I'll look at fixing the legal docs, but please try to warn before adding something
> new next time.
>
[Animesh>] Certainly we need to check the licensing before we add new dependencies. How do we handle this particular issue?
> >
> > This needs to be changed to the Apache licensing , right ?
>
> David already answered this one, please no!
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pranav
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > Of Rohit Yadav
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:22 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Brian Federle
> > Subject: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >
> > Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> ui/lib/require.js?
> > It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We need
> to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't complain.
> >
> > Commit:
> > commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> > Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> > Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
> >
> > Regards.
> >
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:38:11PM +0530, Pranav Saxena wrote:
> Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
>
> /** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
> * @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All Rights Reserved.
> * Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
> * see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details
> */
> //Not using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
> //problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
> /*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */
> /*global window, navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
>
I'm assuming that we have consensus that this script should be added, unless
anyone objects.
I'll look at fixing the legal docs, but please try to warn before adding
something new next time.
>
> This needs to be changed to the Apache licensing , right ?
David already answered this one, please no!
>
> Regards,
> Pranav
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rohit Yadav
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:22 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Brian Federle
> Subject: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for ui/lib/require.js?
> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't complain.
>
> Commit:
> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
>
> Regards.
>
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com>.
Yeah right now the require.js file merged has this license -
/** vim: et:ts=4:sw=4:sts=4
* @license RequireJS 2.1.2 Copyright (c) 2010-2012, The Dojo Foundation All Rights Reserved.
* Available via the MIT or new BSD license.
* see: http://github.com/jrburke/requirejs for details
*/
//Not using strict: uneven strict support in browsers, #392, and causes
//problems with requirejs.exec()/transpiler plugins that may not be strict.
/*jslint regexp: true, nomen: true, sloppy: true */
/*global window, navigator, document, importScripts, jQuery, setTimeout, opera *
This needs to be changed to the Apache licensing , right ?
Regards,
Pranav
-----Original Message-----
From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rohit Yadav
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:22 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Brian Federle
Subject: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for ui/lib/require.js?
It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't complain.
Commit:
commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
Regards.
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com>.
Thanks Chip for handling that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:57 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Brian Federle
Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> ui/lib/require.js?
> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
> need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
> complain.
>
> Commit:
> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
>
> Regards.
>
Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Do we really need to wait 72 hours for all merge requests? I feel that slows developers down unless they plan very well. We had similar discussion just 3 weeks back
and it was discussed that it depends on the scope and dependencies with other modules on case-by-case basis. If all discussion and development and review has happened by community and if it is isolated feature merge can be done quickly.
Here is link to that discussion.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201301.mbox/%3C93099572B72EB341B81A644E134F240B012F747FE622@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net%3E
Thanks
Animesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:39 AM
> To: Chip Childers
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi
> Subject: RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> Chip,
>
> We should spell out the expectations because the community has been evolving
> in how it's behave. It is already difficult for people to follow the emails then
> how can we expect them to follow consensus reach inside those emails. Note
> I'm not talking about technical consensus. Those are the responsibilities of the
> topic owner.
>
> I'm not saying it's not committer's responsibility. I'm saying let's make it easier
> for them to remind themselves what they are. A merge checklist on the wiki
> that includes: waiting 72 hours, check all license headers, watch for build
> failure, will be very nice.
>
> I did see that you signed up to put up a wiki page for it in the other thread. I
> just thought it was only about merge behavior on the list. If it includes license
> checks etc, will be very nice. Thank you.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:23 AM
> > To: Alex Huang
> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi
> > Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This should be on wiki somewhere.
> > >
> > > It is not enough to reach a consensus on the ML for code
> > > collaboration and
> > community behavior. Please record this decision as a guideline on the
> > community topic on the wiki. Think about how new people or people who
> > was not interested in this topic can possibly know this decision.
> > >
> > > --Alex
> >
> > Already agreed in other threads to documenting it, and I volunteered
> > to draft it.
> >
> > However I disagree that this isn't a committer's responsibility to
> > know that licensing is a issue to raise early and often. Contributors
> > go through a review to help catch these things. Committer's have to
> > know how to behave. We can codify it (redundantly to the ASF docs),
> > but that's just a record to reference later. We have spent too much
> > time with this issue for anyone that's been around to have missed it.
> >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:46 AM
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Cc: Brian Federle
> > >> Subject: RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Chip. Folks as Chip mentioned we need to provide enough
> > >> heads
> > up
> > >> before including third party components to ensure licensing has
> > >> been
> > taken
> > >> care of
> > >>
> > >> Animesh
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:27 AM
> > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>> Cc: Brian Federle
> > >>> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> > >>>> ui/lib/require.js?
> > >>>> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation.
> > We
> > >>>> need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat
> > >>>> won't complain.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Commit:
> > >>>> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> > >>>> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> > >>>> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards.
> > >>>
> > >>> Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
> > >
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Yup. I'm mainly making a case against just emails that says "guys, let's do this" or "guys let's not do this". Emails like that should always be backed by items in one of the guideline wikis so people can come back to refer to it.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:51 AM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi
> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Chip,
> >
> > We should spell out the expectations because the community has been
> evolving in how it's behave. It is already difficult for people to follow the
> emails then how can we expect them to follow consensus reach inside those
> emails. Note I'm not talking about technical consensus. Those are the
> responsibilities of the topic owner.
>
> Making it easier to know where to go is a good thing, no doubt. Lets
> all work together on that. Licensing and adding new dependencies
> should be part of that as well.
>
> That being said, I'll still state for the record that I don't believe
> that the legal implications of adding code from outside the project
> without discussion has ever been an issue where there is ambiguity.
> Again, lets highlight it wherever we can, but I don't agree with a
> high volume list meaning that the requirement is unclear.
>
> Perhaps we are talking about two different things here, with your
> point being about the general expectations and mine being very
> specifically about adding any code from outside the project to any
> branch of our repo. Either way, lets write it down in more places to
> help folks remember.
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Chip,
>
> We should spell out the expectations because the community has been evolving in how it's behave. It is already difficult for people to follow the emails then how can we expect them to follow consensus reach inside those emails. Note I'm not talking about technical consensus. Those are the responsibilities of the topic owner.
Making it easier to know where to go is a good thing, no doubt. Lets
all work together on that. Licensing and adding new dependencies
should be part of that as well.
That being said, I'll still state for the record that I don't believe
that the legal implications of adding code from outside the project
without discussion has ever been an issue where there is ambiguity.
Again, lets highlight it wherever we can, but I don't agree with a
high volume list meaning that the requirement is unclear.
Perhaps we are talking about two different things here, with your
point being about the general expectations and mine being very
specifically about adding any code from outside the project to any
branch of our repo. Either way, lets write it down in more places to
help folks remember.
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Chip,
We should spell out the expectations because the community has been evolving in how it's behave. It is already difficult for people to follow the emails then how can we expect them to follow consensus reach inside those emails. Note I'm not talking about technical consensus. Those are the responsibilities of the topic owner.
I'm not saying it's not committer's responsibility. I'm saying let's make it easier for them to remind themselves what they are. A merge checklist on the wiki that includes: waiting 72 hours, check all license headers, watch for build failure, will be very nice.
I did see that you signed up to put up a wiki page for it in the other thread. I just thought it was only about merge behavior on the list. If it includes license checks etc, will be very nice. Thank you.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:23 AM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi
> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > This should be on wiki somewhere.
> >
> > It is not enough to reach a consensus on the ML for code collaboration and
> community behavior. Please record this decision as a guideline on the
> community topic on the wiki. Think about how new people or people who
> was not interested in this topic can possibly know this decision.
> >
> > --Alex
>
> Already agreed in other threads to documenting it, and I volunteered
> to draft it.
>
> However I disagree that this isn't a committer's responsibility to
> know that licensing is a issue to raise early and often. Contributors
> go through a review to help catch these things. Committer's have to
> know how to behave. We can codify it (redundantly to the ASF docs),
> but that's just a record to reference later. We have spent too much
> time with this issue for anyone that's been around to have missed it.
>
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:46 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Brian Federle
> >> Subject: RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >>
> >> Thanks Chip. Folks as Chip mentioned we need to provide enough heads
> up
> >> before including third party components to ensure licensing has been
> taken
> >> care of
> >>
> >> Animesh
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:27 AM
> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Cc: Brian Federle
> >>> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> >>>> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> >>>> ui/lib/require.js?
> >>>> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation.
> We
> >>>> need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
> >>>> complain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Commit:
> >>>> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> >>>> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> >>>> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards.
> >>>
> >>> Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
> >
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> This should be on wiki somewhere.
>
> It is not enough to reach a consensus on the ML for code collaboration and community behavior. Please record this decision as a guideline on the community topic on the wiki. Think about how new people or people who was not interested in this topic can possibly know this decision.
>
> --Alex
Already agreed in other threads to documenting it, and I volunteered
to draft it.
However I disagree that this isn't a committer's responsibility to
know that licensing is a issue to raise early and often. Contributors
go through a review to help catch these things. Committer's have to
know how to behave. We can codify it (redundantly to the ASF docs),
but that's just a record to reference later. We have spent too much
time with this issue for anyone that's been around to have missed it.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:46 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Brian Federle
>> Subject: RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>>
>> Thanks Chip. Folks as Chip mentioned we need to provide enough heads up
>> before including third party components to ensure licensing has been taken
>> care of
>>
>> Animesh
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:27 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: Brian Federle
>>> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>>> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
>>>> ui/lib/require.js?
>>>> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
>>>> need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
>>>> complain.
>>>>
>>>> Commit:
>>>> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
>>>> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
>>>> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
>
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> This should be on wiki somewhere.
>
> It is not enough to reach a consensus on the ML for code collaboration and community behavior. Please record this decision as a guideline on the community topic on the wiki. Think about how new people or people who was not interested in this topic can possibly know this decision.
Also, this resulted in a clear build failure email from builds.a.o
that should have triggered a fix or email to the list asking for how
to resolve. That's something we should all be watching for.
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
This should be on wiki somewhere.
It is not enough to reach a consensus on the ML for code collaboration and community behavior. Please record this decision as a guideline on the community topic on the wiki. Think about how new people or people who was not interested in this topic can possibly know this decision.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Brian Federle
> Subject: RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> Thanks Chip. Folks as Chip mentioned we need to provide enough heads up
> before including third party components to ensure licensing has been taken
> care of
>
> Animesh
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:27 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Brian Federle
> > Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > > Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> > > ui/lib/require.js?
> > > It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
> > > need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
> > > complain.
> > >
> > > Commit:
> > > commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> > > Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> > > Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > >
> >
> > Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
RE: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Thanks Chip. Folks as Chip mentioned we need to provide enough heads up before including third party components to ensure licensing has been taken care of
Animesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:27 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Brian Federle
> Subject: Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> > ui/lib/require.js?
> > It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
> > need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
> > complain.
> >
> > Commit:
> > commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> > Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> > Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
> >
> > Regards.
> >
>
> Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.
Re: License issue for js file from ui-plugins merge
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:21:57PM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi Brian for you commit on master, can you fix the license for
> ui/lib/require.js?
> It suggests an external depedency require.js from Dojo Foundation. We
> need to attribute them in LICENSE and fix other files so rat won't
> complain.
>
> Commit:
> commit 59c77b4850976b17af2b9ff7cceb051ae7b1e774
> Author: Brian Federle <br...@citrix.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 19 15:47:25 2012 -0800
>
> Regards.
>
Legal documentation has been dealt with in master in commit 6279433.