LICENCE content

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

I'm trying to understand what is exactly requested to be in the LICENSE file. I have searched on the ASF documentation but I have
not found anything clear. I have looked at some other LICENSE file in other TLP projects and for instance ActiveMQ for
Prototype/Scriptaculous shows only their respective licenses but no references to any files.  For Prototype/Scriptaculous, we don't
show licenses as there are actually MIT license (or slighlty derived) but we show files references. We show only .js in these cases
(there are other types of file) but in some other cases we also show .css or other types file. And for dojo we only say
ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/dojo/* (dojo is ASL2).

I'd like to use either the same than in ActiveMQ (no references to files) or for dojo. Because with jQuery plugins it begins to be a
nightmare and also this is moving and hard to maintain.

What do you think?

Jacques

[Scott Gray-2]

Hi Jacques,

What's wrong with doing for the plugins what we do for dojo?

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 10/09/2010, at 8:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand what is exactly requested to be in the LICENSE file. I have searched on the ASF documentation but I have not found anything clear. I have looked at some other LICENSE file in other TLP projects and for instance ActiveMQ for Prototype/Scriptaculous shows only their respective licenses but no references to any files.  For Prototype/Scriptaculous, we don't show licenses as there are actually MIT license (or slighlty derived) but we show files references. We show only .js in these cases (there are other types of file) but in some other cases we also show .css or other types file. And for dojo we only say ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/dojo/* (dojo is ASL2).
>
> I'd like to use either the same than in ActiveMQ (no references to files) or for dojo. Because with jQuery plugins it begins to be a nightmare and also this is moving and hard to maintain.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Scott,

I was asking, so if we all agree about doing like that I will use this way. Seems the better: there is a simple reference but don't
need all files (update, etc.)

Other opinions?

Jacques

Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> What's wrong with doing for the plugins what we do for dojo?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 10/09/2010, at 8:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to understand what is exactly requested to be in the LICENSE file. I have searched on the ASF documentation but I
>> have not found anything clear. I have looked at some other LICENSE file in other TLP projects and for instance ActiveMQ for
>> Prototype/Scriptaculous shows only their respective licenses but no references to any files.  For Prototype/Scriptaculous, we
>> don't show licenses as there are actually MIT license (or slighlty derived) but we show files references. We show only .js in
>> these cases (there are other types of file) but in some other cases we also show .css or other types file. And for dojo we only
>> say ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/dojo/* (dojo is ASL2).
>>
>> I'd like to use either the same than in ActiveMQ (no references to files) or for dojo. Because with jQuery plugins it begins to
>> be a nightmare and also this is moving and hard to maintain.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacques