[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-201?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robbie Gemmell reopened DISPATCH-201:
-------------------------------------
Reopening, the previous commit relating to licensing for the console files
needs reworking.
The changes were made in a new file, but licence details should either be wholy
included in the top level LICENCE file or a reference made in that file to
details that are wholy contained elsewhere in the tree (i.e not a URL, since
its contents may change to become inconsistent with the code in use, or it may
just cease to work). One of its main reasons for the top level file existing is
so that you can look at it and find the relevant details as opposed to the
alternative of looking at every other file present to find them.
The simplest approach might be, for a given bundled dependency (e.g lib-foo.js)
that is not under ALv2, to make a file alongside it called LICENCE-lib-foo.txt
(assuming it didn't ship with one that has already been added in the tree),
containing the specific licence text appropriate for that, then reference that
file from within the top level LICENCE, e.g "This product includes Foo, which
is distributed under the Bar licence. See </path/to/LICENCE-lib-foo.txt> for
details".
You have included a singular 'The MIT Licence' text that actually appears to be
for SLF4J, which dispatch obviously does not include so we should remove it. As
before, we should include the licence text appropriate for each dependency,
containing/satisfying e.g any 'you must include the above copyright' etc
requirements appropriate for that particular dependency.
In terms of the specific mentions for other deps:
*jsonformatter*
Googling for "jsonformatter" 0.4.1 suggested the following was the original:
https://libraries.io/npm/jsonformatter/0.4.1
https://github.com/mohsen1/json-formatter
Assuming thats the right one, then according to its source (but not its NPM
page) its actually using Apache License v2:
https://github.com/mohsen1/json-formatter/blob/master/LICENSE.md
https://github.com/mohsen1/json-formatter/blob/master/src/json-formatter.js
The "json-formatter-min.js" we are using would appear to originate from the
"dist" dir on the 0.4.2 (not v0.4.1) tag:
https://github.com/mohsen1/json-formatter/blob/0.4.2/dist/json-formatter.min.js
That latter file does indeed mention the MIT licence. Its possible the LICENSE
file on github is wrong, or that output is under a different licence due to
being modified by whatever minified it. Would be worth a check with the author
to see what the situation actually is, best case being that he would resolve
the ambiguity for future use. For now we would seem to need to treat it as MIT,
though without having any specific licence text its a bit difficult to do
properly since there are multiple MIT licence variations and not all are
permitted. Note that if it was actually covered by the ALv2 then it wouldn't
need mentioned in the LICENCE file due to already being covered by the ALv2
present there already.
*ui-dynatree*
We should not say it is "Licensed under MIT and GPL", but rather that it is
being distributed under the terms of the MIT licence, since thats what we are
doing here because we cant ever take the other option. We should include (or
reference in-tree) the relevant copy of the licence with its copyright
statement included. In this case, it seems that might be the following (but
could be different - the tag matching the library version in use would be the
copy to look at):
https://github.com/mar10/dynatree/blob/master/src/MIT-License.txt
This one is a good example of why external URLs aren't sufficient, since the
project actually migrated to github almost a year ago and the link given
neither contains the actual licence text, or is likely to exist in future given
google-code was/is being decommisioned.
*jQuery UI Slider*
The licence text for this looks like it could be the following (or the version
from whichever tag matches the version in use):
https://github.com/angular-ui/ui-slider/blob/master/LICENSE
It looks like the bundled copy has been modified to add a header saying where
it came from and that its MIT. No real harm in that, but equally no real need
if the LICENCE file calls it out appropriately.
If including a reference to where it came from in the LICENCE file (which isnt
really necessary), it would probably be good to use the tag matching the
release, since master is unlikely to reflect whats being used at the point
someone later reads it (it could even be under an entirely different licence by
that point for example).
*Tipsy*
Assuming this is https://libraries.io/npm/jquery.tipsy/1.0.2 that suggests this
could be the matching license text to include:
https://github.com/jaz303/tipsy/blob/master/LICENSE
*Other non-bundled dependencies.*
The references to 'loaded but not bundled' dependencies possibly dont need to
be there since we don't ship them (and they all appear permissively licensed),
which is what the LICENCE+NOTICE strictly cover, but at the very least I'd
suggest grouping them together at the end of the file after the details of the
bundled bits.
> Initial release of management console
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: DISPATCH-201
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-201
> Project: Qpid Dispatch
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Console
> Affects Versions: 0.6
> Reporter: Ernest Allen
> Assignee: Ernest Allen
> Fix For: 0.6
>
>
> Add a management console. This is a web site that uses the router management
> api to display topology and qdstat information.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
