>-----Original Message----- >From: Drozdetski, Stan A. [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:38 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Pulling in JS - for license reasons? > >Howdy, > >While working on wiring in Bootstrap v2.0.3, Tony and I discovered that we >pull in v2.0.2 of Bootstrap javascript from http:// >http://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/twitter- >bootstrap/2.0.2/bootstrap.min.js. I understand that we pull from a CDN to >avoid any potential issues around licensing.
Another big reason is to not deal with managing versions of external code in our SVN. > >However, v2.0.3 is not available on that CDN, which begs a larger question: >can/should we include Bootstrap files, period? For LESS, that's pretty much >what you have to do. For JS, we could go either way, but I would more >comfortable keeping JS and CSS on the same version. If Bootstrap 2.0.3 really provides value over 2.0.2, then it can be included. Since the js & css are only a point release off, I would say you should look at the actual changes between versions before making that decision. I am sure that the CDN will be updated in relatively short order. > >Incidentally, Bootstrap is available under the same license (Apache v2.0) as >Rave. Certainly, we'll retain their license notices and attribute the code >back to >Bootstrap. We already do this for the CSS, so inclusion of the js is at no additional LICENSE & NOTICE cost, unless they in turn include code that isn't theirs (which they don't) > >So, OK to include, or no? > >Stan Drozdetski >MITRE > >
