>-----Original Message----- >From: Carlucci, Tony [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:15 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Pulling in JS - for license reasons? > >>-----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 The good folks at cdnjs have completed my pull request to add Bootstrap 2.0.3...I will create a Jira ticket to update Rave.
> >> >>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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>>
