Just one more thought: I may concactenate these seperate files into one single ruby file, renamed not to clash with the original "haml.rb" file, eg "brew_haml.rb" or something. In this situation the haml MIT license can be inlined at the top of that one file, as per usual convention. The haml code would then fit closely with the current Homebrew generic wording about licensing:
Licensing Homebrew is mostly BSD licensed although you should refer to each file to confirm. Individual formulae are licensed according to their authors' wishes. Again, I'd like to ask: Would it this usage be okay by the haml authors? It seems to agree very well with the wording exactly of the haml MIT license. But please let me know if theres any objection. On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM, dreamcat four <[email protected]> wrote: > As for licensing: > The file "MIT-LICENSE" can be included into the root folder of the > embedded haml code. Or it can be put in the header of every single > seperately included haml file. Which of those (or neither) would be > acceptable to the haml authors? > > > Haml Source Files: > > haml/engine.rb: > require 'haml/helpers' > require 'haml/buffer' > require 'haml/precompiler' > require 'haml/filters' > require 'haml/error' > And... > haml/helpers/*.rb # required from 'helpers.rb' > require 'haml/shared' # required from precompiler > > > > > dreamcat4 > [email protected] > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
