@Anne could please add the copyright notice to the LICENSE file. I'm not going to have access to SVN next week.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > With 3rd party works, you don't move the copyright notices. > You copy them, along with the license, into the LICENSE file. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Anne Kathrine Petterøe <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 9:51:16 AM >> Subject: Re: LGPL code in ESME (was: ESME-47 "Some Licensing Nits" ...) >> >> Thanks! >> >> For the two files with dual licensing you just leave the MIT in and remove >> the >> GPL. >> Quote from the legal-discuss thread: >> "Ans: When including that work's licensing, state which license is being used >> and include only the license that you have chosen." >> >> Now my next question would be if we can move those copyright notices to the >> NOTICE file? >> >> /Anne >> >> >> On 5. feb. 2010, at 15.27, Richard Hirsch wrote: >> >> > Just finished cleaning up our SVN. >> > >> > Added licenses where needed and threw out files that weren't used. I >> > added the latest rat listing to the JIRA item. We currently just have >> > two files with a licensing issue: >> > >> > !????? src/main/webapp/scripts/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.min.js >> > !????? src/main/webapp/style/smoothness/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.css >> > >> > Both have the dual licensing: >> > >> > /* >> > * jQuery UI 1.7.2 >> > * >> > * Copyright (c) 2009 AUTHORS.txt (http://jqueryui.com/about) >> > * Dual licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt) >> > * and GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses. >> > * >> > * http://docs.jquery.com/UI >> > */ >> > >> > I looked at the thread that Anne mentioned and didn't really find a >> > final decision. >> > >> > @mentors: any suggestions >> > >> > I did some quick testing in the UI. Maybe others can test with the >> > latest code drop to se if anything else is broken. >> > >> > D. >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Anne Kathrine Petterøe >> > wrote: >> >> A discussion on legal-discuss pointed me to this discussion about dual >> licensing, interesting to read: >> >> http://markmail.org/thread/b46v73m6thhm5zw4 >> >> >> >> /Anne >> >> >> >> On 29. jan. 2010, at 20.03, Richard Hirsch wrote: >> >> >> >>> We probably have to clean up the JQuery-related script files any way - >> >>> get the most recent version, etc. >> >>> >> >>> D. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Richard Hirsch >> wrote: >> >>>> As Bertrand mentioned in the first post in this thread, this is >> >>>> probably the way to go... >> >>>> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Ethan Jewett wrote: >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Since JQuery is MIT licensed, why can't we just include it (unchanged) >> >>>>> in the distribution as third-party code? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ethan >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Richard Hirsch >> wrote: >> >>>>>> Looks cool. Thanks. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Only problem is that I didn't find a maven repoistory with the JQuery >> files. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 1/29/10, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Hirsch >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Re: maven-soultion, I was thinking about JQuery stuff. If its MIT >> >>>>>>>> license is ok, then we just have to see the instructions on dealing >> >>>>>>>> with third party works.... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Ok, in Sling we have a similar case with dojo, and what we do is >> >>>>>>> download it at build time, and store in a local cache for future >> >>>>>>> builds. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> See the "Dynamically download the Dojo Toolkit" bit in >> >>>>>>> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/trunk/contrib/extensions/dojo/pom.xml >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Bertrand >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
