Hi,
> Changing the 4.14 LICENSE and NOTICE won’t help older releases.
I assume we'll have to make point releases of them.
> 1) I’m wondering if one of the reasons for the Installer having a checkbox
> for SWFObject is because the Installer doesn’t let the customer review
> LICENSE and NOTICE of
@Justin, thanks for the link to “prominent label”. IMO, what to do about
older releases is a different topic. Changing the 4.14 LICENSE and NOTICE
won’t help older releases.
I had two other thoughts on this topic:
1) I’m wondering if one of the reasons for the Installer having a checkbox
for SW
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 extr
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
OK, let me see if I can pull all three responses into one.
On 12/20/14, 5:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Also on this subject I've no idea why we are prompting for SWFObject when
>it is MIT licensed, as MIT is an compatible licence. The same should
>apply to any Category A licenses (ie Ap
