I can help take a look at an alternative. It is used for building up facets in the search portion of the console.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:09 PM Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Justin noticed in our RC that we include tagmanager.js, which is > category B. I'm not sure what role it plays in the console - anyone > know of an alternative to it's functionality under an acceptable > license? > > Thanks, > --tim > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Justin Mclean <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1 > To: [email protected] > > > Hi, > > Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / > explained, other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue > it may be that "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed > by the ASF product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2] > > For the source release I checked: > - filename contains incubating > - signatures and hashes good > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2] > - NOTICE good > - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below) > - All source file have headers > - Can compile form source? > > LiCENSE is missing: > - MIT licensed normalize.css (see > > ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css > + > ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less) > - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js) > > There is an issue with > ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this > is MPL licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category > B license. In this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly > as it being included in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this > should be handled given there is no compiled JS form. > > There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this > be produced via the build process? > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar > > Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the > ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is > there any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look > that they are used to generate the binary NOTICE file? > > For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is > identical to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a > minor issue in that there is no need to repeat "This product includes > software developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4]. > > Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be > helpful as it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what > is expected. (As far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and > nothing else?) > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep > 2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary > 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
