On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Donal Lafferty <donal.laffe...@citrix.com> wrote: > Could I get some more clarity on how to deal with Microsoft dependencies? > > ".NET Framwork V4.5" is straightforward. It's like a JDK and a JRE, because > after installation you can build and run against it. It comes with a > separate install, so ".NET Framework v4.5" is easy to install independently, > and it would show up in a list of steps for setting up a build environment or > deploying the Hyper-V agent.
This doesn't worry me at all. It's a system dependency. > > However, I'm confused about how to treat "ASP.NET MVC4". It meets build / > platform criteria. I've sub classed some of its types, and merely > constructed others. Unlike the .NET Framework v4.5, it is not designed to be > installed independently of the application that uses it. If we distributed > source, builders would be expected to download the binaries involved. If I > was writing an installer, I'd include the binaries in my install. > > The license is here: MICROSOFT ASP.NET MODEL VIEW CONTROLLER 4 EULA at > http://www.microsoft.com/web/webpi/eula/mvc_4_eula_enu.htm Will there be any > problem with distributing code that builds > against it? This I have some concerns about; and think it's worth asking on legal-discuss about > > Also, I've added a dependency. For compression and decompression of bz2, I'm > using http://dotnetzip.codeplex.com/license. The binary is used in a similar > fashion to the "ASP.NET MVC4 binaries. Will there be any problem with > distributing code that builds against it? I don't see anything inherently wrong with it - MSPL is a category B license. So no. > > Finally, what does "CI" in " an appropriate CI environment running for this > code" mean? > Continuous integration - think Jenkins or something similar (but really, for us, Jenkins)
