Chris you also mentioned that when the libraries are compiled that there are potential multiple licenses involved within a single compiled file. Is that correct?
Aaron On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Chris Rohr <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm trying to help with adding licenses to blur console. Question though, > does the license need to just be in the source or in anything that is > compiled too (i.e. templates that compile to HTML, scss files that compile > to CSS.). Is the license required to show up in both or just the source? > > Thanks > Chris > > On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Aaron McCurry wrote: > > > Ok. Thanks Patrick! > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > The general guideline is to add a header for each/every possible file. > > > This includes html, etc... > > > > > > Some files cannot contain the header (e.g. sample input files for > > > tests, confluence markup docs which don't support comments, etc...) > > > and in some cases generated files. Otw you should try to add the > > > header. > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > I'm trying to cleanup our rat issues for our upcoming release. > > > > > > > > I'm assuming that files types like html, css, js, etc do not have to > be > > > > licensed in the file due to the extra overhead that would incur in > the > > > > runtime applications. Such as bandwidth for dowloading the Apache > > > license > > > > over and over again. > > > > > > > > Is there general guidelines for this? Should we include an Apache > > footer > > > > in the html pages that link about to the license? > > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > >
