On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Ivan Habunek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 17 December 2011 09:41, Scott Deboy <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we care about the jquery license for the site? If so, we need something >> in the notice file...otherwise, I guess we're ok...from the rat report: >> >> 4 Unknown Licenses >> >> ******************************* >> >> Unapproved licenses: >> >> src/site/resources/js/jquery.min.js >> src/site/resources/js/jquery.js >> src/site/resources/js/prettify.min.js >> src/site/resources/css/bootstrap.min.css > > jquery.js has it's MIT/GPL licence header [1], but RAT does not detect > it for some reason. The other three are minified versions (originals > are also included in the distribution along with their respective > licenses). I was under the impression that generated files do not need > to have a licence header. Am I wrong?
Whats meant is the LICENSE file needs to contain the MIT/GPL license: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses I think the LICENSE must containt the license of jquery and probably even in the NOTICE file this must be mentioned: http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices Cheers Christian > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/~ihabunek/apache-log4php-2.2.0-RC1/site/js/jquery.js > >> Also, in the changelog, the release date: TBA, when does that get updated? > > Well, I can't put in a date before I know when the vote will be > done.Previous versions did not have this problem because they did not > have a changelog page. I planned to do a site update after the > release. Any better ideas? > >> If the jquery license doesn't need to be added to the notice file, I'm +1 > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > Ivan -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
