>-----Original Message----- >From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:59 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Pulling in JS - for license reasons? > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Drozdetski, Stan A. [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:38 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Pulling in JS - for license reasons? >> >>Howdy, >> >>While working on wiring in Bootstrap v2.0.3, Tony and I discovered that we >>pull in v2.0.2 of Bootstrap javascript from http:// >>http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/twitter- >>bootstrap/2.0.2/bootstrap.min.js. I understand that we pull from a CDN to >>avoid any potential issues around licensing. > >Another big reason is to not deal with managing versions of external code in >our SVN. > >> >>However, v2.0.3 is not available on that CDN, which begs a larger question: >>can/should we include Bootstrap files, period? For LESS, that's pretty much >>what you have to do. For JS, we could go either way, but I would more >>comfortable keeping JS and CSS on the same version. > >If Bootstrap 2.0.3 really provides value over 2.0.2, then it can be included. >Since the js & css are only a point release off, I would say you should look at >the actual changes between versions before making that decision. I am sure >that the CDN will be updated in relatively short order.
It appears anyone can request a code contribution to cdnjs[1] so perhaps we can contribute the Bootstrap 2.0.3 file? http://thechangelog.com/post/5353597406/cdnjs-an-open-source-peer-reviewed-cdn-script > >> >>Incidentally, Bootstrap is available under the same license (Apache v2.0) as >>Rave. Certainly, we'll retain their license notices and attribute the code >>back >to >>Bootstrap. > >We already do this for the CSS, so inclusion of the js is at no additional >LICENSE >& NOTICE cost, unless they in turn include code that isn't theirs (which they >don't) > >> >>So, OK to include, or no? >> >>Stan Drozdetski >>MITRE >> >> >
