I was going through the license condition of Material Design Lite- Framework-1.2.0. All of the source files are licensed under Apache V2.0 License but 'LICENSE' file has following infomation "All code in any directories or sub-directories that end with *.html or *.css is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License, which full text can be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode .". I would like to know whether the files ending with .css or .html are licensed under Apache V2.0 license or Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License?
Related
I use Visual Studio 2019 to develop a web ASP.NET MVC application.
When I debug, or execute my web application, with the browser debugger F12, I can read in the sources menu (view photo) that my pages are based on sccs style sheets located in a scss directory.
How to generated this directory? Why most of the css (coming from bootstrap) are translated into sass files ? Is it due to the package Web.Optimization which generate bundles? I don't understand the process and its utility.
Can someone answer my questions ?
For information, I installed bootstrap 4.5.3 with NuGet, and I noticed that several files where created in"Content" directory in the project explorer (bootstrap-grid.css.map, bootstrap-reboot.css.map, etc). So I think bootstrap is maybe the reason of scss files like _reboot.scss).
Scss files are translated (by engine Sass) into css. Only that files browser can understand.
I think files from picture are just in public folder.
(*.map, *.min.css, etc) files are optional.
In Bootstrap documentation is written:
compiled and minified CSS and JS (bootstrap.min.). CSS source maps (bootstrap..map) are available for use with certain browsers' developer tools
https://getbootstrap.com/docs/3.4/getting-started/#whats-included-precompiled
The minimized files are size optimized and maps are helpful for developer tools use.
Thanks Apan.
Finally, I can keep only the 2 files bootstrap.css and the js, because MVC minimizes them with bundling process.
My system: Windows 10, Mysql, Alfresco Community 5.1.x
- I go to http://alf-trans.ossportal.org and download 2 file jar for vietnamese (alfresco-vi.jar and share-vi.jar)
- Then I copy 2 file to C:/alfresco/tomcat/shared/lib
- Restart AlfrescoTomcat Service
But language not change..
After restarting the services of Alfresco. I checked the entire directory does not find any files with the extension is _vi.properties
Alfresco does not support all language out-of-the-box, the official list of languages can be found here. However, there are Alfresco Community efforts to support other languages, information on that can be found here. If you look at this link you'll see that it does appear that there is a Community Vietnamese translation available.
Suppose I have a project that uses a third-party library, e.g. scopt which is published under an MIT license.
When using sbt-native-packager to generate a distributable tarball, zip, deb, etc. I am redistributing a copy of all of my dependencies. When redistributing, I am required, by the licensing conditions of my dependencies, to include a copy of that license / copyright notice / licensing conditions (in the license usually called redistribution in binary form). By the way, sbt-native-packager also includes a copy of the Scala standard library as well, which also does not include the appropriate licensing conditions / copyright notice according to its 3-clause BSD style license.
By default, sbt-native-packager does not include such license copies / copyright notices / ... in the generated distribution.
What I am looking for is a convenient way to automatically include all licenses / copyright notices of all (including transitive) dependencies.
... or else, I suppose, I would be breaking the law if I published the raw tarball generated by sbt-native-packager as is on e.g. the GitHub release page, wouldn't I?
edit
I guess, it would be really hard to have a general way for sbt-native-packager to inject all licenses/copyright notices into the distributions created by it, because neither the jar archive nor ivy, maven, sbt, etc. have first class support for adding the license and copyright notice to the archive.
The only recommendation I have seen thus far is by the Apache Software Foundation. They recommend to put the license at the top of the jar archive (cointaining the bare license file) and include a NOTICE file as well (containing all the copyright notices). I deem this recommendation good.
I guess, support for handling all this legal stuff should be better to begin with. Build tools like sbt should support this better and much more visible, e.g. check all generated jar archives and if they do not include both LICENSE and NOTICE files error out of tasks like package.
To answer your question: there's AFAIK no way of handling licences in a general way in sbt-native-packager. E.g. putting them in a separate directory or listing them.
Having said that, I think that this is not really necessary for a couple of reasons. I'm no advocate, so this is just my understanding of this.
If you have your git tarball there is none of your dependencies included. Only a build file that declares them. So you are not distributing any code. So this should be fine
When you build an executable binary the you will include not only the code, but the whole jar, which normally includes all licenese and copyright hints. Technically you have included everything.
I haven't seen any issues around that topic or a way other build tools like maven/gradle handle this. What would a solution look like? If this is a problem?
Update
I found this sbt-license-report plugin which should generate the information you need. If this is what you are looking for, I'm happy to merge a pull request updating the sbt-native-packager docs :)
I have a web application made with Symfony2 and I want to add my license choice in the repository. The thing is that the default Symfony2 project has a LICENSE file in the root directory and I don't know where I am supposed to put my LICENSE file and if I should delete the Symfony2's one. Also happens with README file.
I guess that you Symfony2 programmers sure know how to handle this.
Your own application code should be located mostly in the src folder. If you take a look at some Bundles or other components of Symfony2 you can see that they all have a separate LICENSE file in their bundle root directory. So the correct choice for your file would be:
src/.../.../LICENSE
In this case your LICENSE file would also be included if you install your bundle via composer on a different project. In that case it would be at:
vendor/.../.../LICENSE
Many times website developers need to handle the download of heavy *.exe or *.msi setup files from their website. Today this involves complex hotlinking protection and multiple binaries version management.
The question is: does it worth to include these heavy binaries (in our case ~300MB) to website source control? Is there any workaround to fully test the download locally without including these file - that will never change - to Team Foundation Server source control?
if the binaries are external you have two options:
option 1: I prefer to include them in your solution.
option 2: you can create a team project called "Common Binaries" and make it a shared resource of all common binaries.