Justin, regrading the bootstrap and glyphicons licensing points you raised, there was a github discussion in 2012 [1] [3] that led to the licensing text in [2] about bootstrap's usage of glyphicons. This discussion predates the release of 3.0.3, which we are using. So you're right that glyphicons should be considered apache-2.0 licensed because we are using it from the bootstrap distribution. I will be updating [4] our LICENSE to reflect that both bootstrap and glyphicons are apache-2.0 licensed.
[1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/3942#issuecomment-6869818 [2] http://glyphicons.com/license/ [3] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/3942#issuecomment-12559146 [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/DATAFU/issues/DATAFU-134 On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Hayes < matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Justin for clarifying. > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > Thanks for pointing out the json license issue. I searched the code and >> > found only a small piece of code that uses it so it shouldn't be hard to >> > replace with an alternative. For my understanding, when [1] states "CAN >> > APACHE PRODUCTS INCLUDE WORKS LICENSED UNDER THE JSON LICENSE?", does >> > either having the source code in the source release or having a build or >> > runtime dependency count as "including" the licensed work? In our case >> we >> > have a build+runtime dependency but do not include the source code. >> >> Sorry to say but you can’t have a build or runtime dependancy and you >> can’t distribute it [1] unless it’s optional [2]. >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >> >> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited >> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >
