Funny thing: I'm with Justin on this ;-) Let's make this simpler for the end-user, not more complicated. If we can reasonable assume that we can either pre-tick something, or leave out the option altogether, we want to do that. We don't want to do something that affects the user "just to make extra doubly sure we run even the slightest chance of having to change this again at some point in the future (which is really the worst case scenario)".
EdB On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > 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 -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
