The rails script comes from rails itself, so it should probably be under the rails license or at least excluded because it is generated when you run rails new.
The Gemfile.lock is generated and it is best practice to check that file in so that developers don't have different versions of the libraries. Hope that helps. Chris On Monday, September 9, 2013, Tim Williams wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Aaron McCurry > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > In updating the rules for RAT in maven I have gone through all the issues > > that are in the rat.txt file. > > > > I don't think these Javascript libraries are accounted for in the LICENSE > > file: > > Hmm... I think the console wasn't previously in the binary artifact > (was only in src) so I only accounted for them in LICENSE-src.txt. If > the console is now shipping with the binary convenience artifact, then > I can account for them there. > > I'm wondering if we ought to treat minified in the same way as binary? > In other words, ship the unminified with -src and minify it on build > ourselves? To kick this thing out the door for now, I agree with > Patrick that maybe we should just punt and ship unminified? > > For Gemfile.lock, I'd think since it's generated we could argue it > falls under an exception[1]? > > For the rails script, who wrote it? If NIC, it looks like comments are > allowed so why not just add the standard header? > > --tim > > [1] - http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions >
