Joe, Isn't the LICENSE file only for the Apache License? Shouldn't we create a MIT-LICENSE.txt file as the copyright states? * Copyright (c) 2009 AUTHORS.txt (http://jqueryui.com/about) * Licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt) license.
/Anne On 5. feb. 2010, at 19.08, Joe Schaefer 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> > > > >
