My only thought on this would be that it would be nice that any file which is pulled in externally be defined in a separate file so that it is easy to override if users want to host files locally. I think most things are already defined that way so it's off to a good start.
Chris On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Carlucci, Tony <[email protected]> wrote: > >-----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 > >> > >> > > > >
