> You'll notice that most of the code uses function chaining on a single
line, but the cookie code puts method calls on a single line in the same
style as the cookie examples on the website. I would also think a more
commonly used JS implementation would use a simple for loop or RegEx
matching to f
Hi,
> So the groups.js has some documentation from that mozilla page copied
> as a comment. This is not an uncommon practice. The text is not in
> example code and most people would assume that the copying of small
> fragments of documentation as code comments is fair use.
IANAL but fair use is c
So the groups.js has some documentation from that mozilla page copied
as a comment. This is not an uncommon practice. The text is not in
example code and most people would assume that the copying of small
fragments of documentation as code comments is fair use.
Since the comment is not important,
HI,
Sorry I meant to say:
“...but the cookie code puts method calls on SEPERATE lines in the same
style...“
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@
Hi,
You'll notice that most of the code uses function chaining on a single line,
but the cookie code puts method calls on a single line in the same style as the
cookie examples on the website. I would also think a more commonly used JS
implementation would use a simple for loop or RegEx matchin
> which if you asked someone "how do you create a cookie that lasts one
year"
Actually that functions lets you set the number of days defaulting to a
year if the parameter is not defined, but
in any case there is no code sample on
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/cookie
th
> Looking as the code I disagree, you can see parts of the code have been
copied and modified.
Can you please elaborate?
I just had an look at the entire git history of the file (see
https://github.com/lightbend/paradox/commit/7f55c0c71bfbfc6a987c2693b19dcbb74c9dc9a3)
and the original version
of
I have checked random strings from the groups.js and have not found
them in the mozilla file.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/cookie
Justin - could you highlight one or 2 examples where you think code was copied?
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 00:43, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> H
Hi,
Looking as the code I disagree, you can see parts of the code have been copied
and modified.
Kind Regard
Justin
> On 14 Jul 2023, at 9:12 am, PJ Fanning wrote:
>
> Thanks Justin for clarifying. Based on Johannes' input, we think that
> we don't need to add anything to the license for thes
Thanks Justin for clarifying. Based on Johannes' input, we think that
we don't need to add anything to the license for these Mozilla links.
The links are there to point at the API documentation and none of the
sample code that appears in that documentation was copied.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 00:05,
HI,
Both CC0 [1] and MIT [2] are treated as Category A licenses so can be included
in a source release.
Kind Regards,
Justin
1.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#handling-public-domain-licensed-works
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
Hi everyone,
The Apache Pekko (Incubating) Team is happy to announce the release of
Apache Pekko (Incubating) 1.0.0.
Apache Pekko (Incubating) is an open source toolkit and runtime
simplifying the construction of concurrent and distributed
applications on the JVM. It is a fork of Akka and has com
On 2023/07/13 01:08:28 Justin Mclean wrote:
> > https://github.com/lightbend/paradox/blob/8e30c341f1f8351a19b71599219d2f636ba68eb4/themes/generic/src/main/assets/js/groups.js
>
> That contains code from [1] which I thought was licensed under the MPL [2],
> but it looks like this situation may hav
I created an issue at https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/27920 to
clarify the actual license, let's see if we get a prompt response.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:09 AM PJ Fanning wrote:
> Thanks Matthew. It makes sense that sample code is often licensed
> under more permissive licenses.
>
> Wor
Thanks Matthew. It makes sense that sample code is often licensed
under more permissive licenses.
Working out the date on which this documentation was published is
going to be tricky. I followed a GitHub link [1] from the page
referenced in groups.js and the file history is pretty garbled due to
f
I just had a quick look into this and according to
https://github.com/mdn/content/blob/main/LICENSE.md#licenses-for-code-examples-and-snippets
the licensed code snippet (which is what the source file in question is
referring to) it should be CC0 license if the code snippet was added after
August 20
16 matches
Mail list logo
