>-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Geer [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:22 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Pulling in JS - for license reasons? > >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
I have a git pull request in to add Bootstrap 2.0.3 to cdnjs. https://github.com/cdnjs/cdnjs/pull/260 (it's actually a real easy process to add new files if you are familiar with git) Tony > >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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
