Sure, no problem. On 6. feb. 2010, at 06.05, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> @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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
