Or ask Dynark to add a compatible license. On Jan 3, 2008 2:18 PM, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's an extra hurdle that isn't needed. I'd just assume not use the > DateField component at all because I don't need to be chasing down a > dependency everytime I want to use that component. Best case is that the > javascript gets packaged up into a component hosted on a non-ASF server and > can be deployed via maven, but someone has to step up to do that. > Otherwise, how do you distribute the JS in a standard manner? Tell the user > that they also have to add it to the classpath for the component to find it? > > Now, is this to be acceptable for each different component if each is to use > an LGPL library (obviously not the case, but worst case)? > > At least in the case of the non-distributable JARs you mentioned there's a > standard way to deal with the problem. Heck, maven even tells you where to > download the JARs from and how to deploy them to an internal repository. A > process that's well defined and needs to be executed precisely once for each > maven environment as a whole. > > At the end of the day, it's likely easier to just find another calendar that > has a compatible license or to roll our own. > > Regards, > Kevin > > > On 1/3/08 4:48 PM, in article > [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Paul Cooley" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The same argument can be made for quite a few of the specific java libraries > > as well. Those that are not included in maven require you to manually > > install them in your repository for builds, since they cannot be > > distributed. I understand the warning, but I fail to see how this is a > > showstopper. If it's an important library for the project, then all we need > > are release notes to know what needs to be installed separately from the > > distribution. > > > > After all, we're going to run into the same kinds of issues when packaging > > public webapps to be distributing via tomcat/jboss/etc for libraries that > > can't legally be packaged in an application. > > > > Cheers. > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 3:38 PM, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Correct, but that makes it practically useless as a core component :-/ > >> > >> -- > >> Kevin > >> > >> > >> On 1/3/08 3:23 PM, in article > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Paul Cooley" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually it appears it can be listed as a system requirement: just not > >>> included for distribution. > >>> > >>> On Jan 3, 2008 2:21 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Sounds like the policy has shifted again. It's like quicksilver. > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
-- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
