Why did you remove 2 compatible dependencies which were MIT licensed? Downloading the JS from the URL just obfuscates the dependency.
În mar., 3 ian. 2017 la 12:57 Jaroslav Tulach <[email protected]> a scris: > Hello NetBeans fans! > > Here is a few more details on top of Geertjan's report: > > > > On pátek 23. prosince 2016 15:27:37 CET Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We've identified the following repos as being the repos we want to donate > > > to Apache: > > > > > > community-ruby (2376 files) > > > community-soa (11770 files files) > > > community-uml (6365 files) > > > community-visualweb (6339 files) > > > community-xml (2326 files) > > > html4j (280 files) > > > jackpot30 (964 files) > > > (main)contrib > > > (main)misc (5076 files) > > > plsql-support (2341 files) > > > releases (100548 files) > > > releases-l10n (33348 files) > > > > If you look at repositories listed at http://hg.netbeans.org you may find > > "donation_review" branches in some of them. > > > > > However, we can't contribute something we haven't reviewed. We can only > > > give to Apache what is ours to give. We can't make licensing decisions > for > > > someone else's code. E.g., we can't donate Oracle logos, for example. And > > > there are several other logos too. We can't donate all kinds of things if > > > they're not actually ours to donate. > > > > The idea is to cleanup the code and put the fixes into the donation_review > > branch that should then contain files officially donate-able by Oracle to > Apache > > (insert all the legal warnings describing everything that can go wrong > here). > > > > > Starting from the smallest repo, i.e., 'html4j', the repos are being > > > reviewed. That particular repo took less than a day to review, yes, > someone > > > is going through the repo paintakingly looking at files for licensing > > > concerns and anything else that could be odd for whatever reason. And > then > > > the concerns discovered need to be discussed and handled. > > > > Good news is that in case of html4j repository I received the review > comments > > and addressed them as well as I could. Today I've merged the fixes into the > > donation_review branch: https://hg.netbeans.org/html4j/rev/929563230c07 > > > > I have good feelings about the review process. The review identified things > > that really cannot be donated (knockout.js or safari_logo.png files being > two > > examples). I have managed to address these issues and still keep the code > > buildable and functional. > > > > > Yes, this is taking time -- still, once done we'll know for sure that > > > things are good and ready. > > > > The html4j repository is just a single step, but it seems to indicate that > we > > are moving in the right direction. > > > > -jt > > > > > Yes, this is taking time -- still, once done we'll know for sure that > > > things are good and ready. We're doing something right now that I had > > > thought we'd be doing throughout incubation in the Apache Git repo. > Instead > > > of that, we're doing it before getting it into the Apache Git repo. This > is > > > something that Oracle wants and must do, itself, i.e., no one else, > outside > > > Oracle, should be involved in this since it is Oracle that is donating > the > > > code and not anyone else. > > > > > > Hard to give a time estimate for the above, though I imagine some weeks > at > > > least are involved. > > > > > > We're moving along and there is progress and the end is clear. In the end > > > this will have been a good process for its thoroughness and for having > > > avoided situations with unknown unknowns, since everything will > ultimately > > > come to light as this investigation continues. > > > > > > Gj > > > > > >
