Hi, > I’m ok with pulling out SWFObject when we go tweak the install script > unless someone has a good reason it should stay in there.
A possible option would be to pre tick and/or remove the checkbox in the installer? > My temptation is to fix this by making Saxon a download behind a prompt Why do we need a prompt? We're not downloading the source, just the jar right? > That avoids us having to figure out what “prominent label” means. This has been discussed and seems reasonably clear, but the JIRA is not marked as closed. [1] > And yet another option is to download all of these jars in the install. We currently are as we are downloading the binary and they are contained in that, but I assume you mean removing them from the binary and downloading them separately via the installer script? In that case how would we handler older versions of the SDK? > It would probably be the fewest changes to the repo to make it work as > then we wouldn’t need to muck with LICENSE and NOTICE as much, but then > there are more downloads that could fail during the install. Given we already have a large number of download failures I'm not sure that's the best option. >> * NOTICE file may not be correct as velocity original NOTICE file has no >> downstream effects. > > Not sure I understood what you mean by that. The Velocity NOTICE file in the jar doesn't look like the original/right one and may of been incorrectly replaced. > From the above list, do we need to add W3C if all jars that have W3C also > have AL licenses? My understanding is that its not dual licensed (ie select the license you want), but different parts of the code are licensed under different licenses. The W3C license is compatible with Apache and I assume you treat it like MIT/BSD license ie just add it to LICENSE. Thanks, Justin 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-77
