yeah we are *not* proposing to distribute browserify or its deps On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are we actually distributing? > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 12:36:03 PM Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:25:51 AM Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not actually worried about my disk filling up. Dependencies must > be > > > > vetted for appropriate licenses, so now there's more overhead here. > If > > we > > > > need to make a change to the module system now we need to poor > through > > > docs > > > > and make PRs instead of just editing our very small code-base. > > > > > > > > > > > This mix of MIT and 3-Clause BSD looks compatible to me. It's weaker > > than > > > Apache, but not incompatible. Do we really need to send this to legal? > > > https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > > > There are people who can argue your other points better, but saying > that > > > the license is the overhead when you can find it in the repo? I'm not > > sure > > > how we would have gotten this far if we had to check with legal for > every > > > single dependency. > > > > > > > I meant that it depends on a bunch of other modules. Run license-checker > on > > browserify and you get: http://pastebin.com/XDMCTRRb > > >
