I meant the source distribution here. I guess I didn't realize Calcite source tree has embedded copies of some 3rd party css/js, but since those are not fetched dynamically and are part of the source tree, I think the committed LICENCE file should include those vs altering it at release time. As for Github, I think this is a non-issue because I've seen lots of variations on the LICENSE file, and github seems pretty lenient about it. I actually tried licensee ( https://github.com/licensee/licensee, used by Github itself) on the source distribution and it has no issue identifying the license.
Also, although jekyll, is mentioned as a dependency, I don't see it bundled, and because there's no version associated with it, the license file is under licenses/jekyll-. On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:34 AM Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Laurent> I'm slightly confused. Are any of MIT dependencies mentioned in > LICENSE > Laurent> bundled with the distribution? > > Which distribution do you mean? > Of course, Calcite source release bundles third-party dependencies (e.g. > site/js/*.js files). > > Vladimir >
