On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:16 PM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > I did not.... I will check them out. Does it matter for tooling?
No, using (say) GPL licensed or commercially licensed build tools is fine. The only thing we don't want is really crazy tool licenses that place some kind of claim on generated artifacts, but I'm not aware of anything like that in the javascript community. The obvious example to help remember this is using GCC to compile httpd for linux, or visual studio to compile httpd for windows, etc etc. As an aside, node.js, grunt and most other modern javascript magic is all MIT licensed, which would be compatible to redistribute, too -- not that we should. cheers! Leo, gruntjs fan, didn't know gulp until just now > On 11 November 2014 20:39, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ian, did you check the license categories for the dependencies? any Cat. X? >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: >>> It would be really interesting to see build tools like grunt[1] or >> gulp[2] >>> being used around frontend work.... I've recently been working on a >>> personal project[3] with gulp and integration with maven through >>> exec-maven-plugin and yeoman-maven-plugin[4] >>> >>> It would allow us to pull external dependencies out of the code base and >>> pull then in during compile time(bower[5]). It would allow us to minify >> all >>> the javascript reducing page load times. It would allow for style >> checking >>> along with other things.... >>> >>> It adds a huge dependency on NodeJS and NodeJS utilities though. >>> >>> [1] http://gruntjs.com/ >>> [2] http://gulpjs.com/ >>> [3] https://github.com/imduffy15/carcloud-api/blob/master/pom.xml >>> [4] https://github.com/trecloux/yeoman-maven-plugin >>> [5] http://bower.io/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan >>
