-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Check Extension Licenses #25
Comments
Comment by chkal You are referring to the dependency on the 3rd party template engines, correct? So actually we have to check the license of all template engines for which MVC view engines exist, correct? |
Comment by ivargrimstad Yes, if we package them together in the Ozark deliverable. This is definitely something that will be checked by the IP-team if/when we transfer to Eclipse. A solution for potential non-compliant view engines is to extract them to a separate extensions project with appropriate licensing |
Comment by chkal What about So would that have any impact on the license requirements? Any idea? |
Comment by ivargrimstad I have to check up whether that makes a difference. Anyway, I think that if we provide the view engine, we should also provide the implementation with a specific version that we have tested it with. Letting the users do this themselves just adds complexity and lead to errors. |
Comment by chkal Ok! I'm not strong on the idea of using |
Comment by ivargrimstad Extensions:
|
Comment by Daniel-Dos Hi @ivargrimstad , In site - >pebble/license , really seems to be a proprietary license . In link -> jetbrick-template informs that it is about the apache license. |
Comment by chkal @ivargrimstad So Jetbrick may be problematic because of the transitive antlr dependency? |
Comment by chkal Just a quick note on this. If we find incompatible license in our dependencies because of 3rd party view engines, we should most likely drop them before moving to EE4J. We can still keep them alive in a separate GitHub project if we want. |
Comment by ivargrimstad Let's wait and see. The CQ team at EF will do a pretty thorough job going through it when we transfer the code and they're much better at doing that than we are I guess... |
Comment by chkal Ok, sounds great! |
I guess we should close this in favor of #30. |
Issue by ivargrimstad
Thursday Jun 21, 2018 at 06:16 GMT
Originally opened as mvc-spec/ozark#179
Go through the contributed extensions and verify that they have a license that is compatible with ASLv2.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: