[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 07/17/17 at 09:00am, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via arch-projects wrote:
> Indeed. things under GPL 2 (notice the lack of "+"/"or later") can't
> adapt/depend on things under GPL 3.
> 
> Things under both GPL 2 and its "+"/"or later" version can't
> adapt/depend on things under Apache 2.0. However, things under GPL 3 and
> its "+"/"or later" version can.

I'm not fond of moving to GPLv3, first off, we'd have to ask all
contributors to agree to it right?

But something I can see do-able, is moving away from
bootstrap-typeahead.js to horsey which is MIT licensed. [1]

> - "visualize/static/visualize.js" is licensed under GNU GPL 2 (assumed to be "only" because the license notice in the file doesn't tell if there is an upgrade possibility).

This is part of archweb, so GPLv2

> - "mirrors/static/mirror_status.js" is licensed under GNU GPL 2 (assumed to be "only" because the license notice in the file doesn't tell if there is an upgrade possibility).

This is part of archweb, so GPLv2

[1] https://github.com/bevacqua/horsey

-- 
Jelle van der Waa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/attachments/20170810/e3fa2f78/attachment.asc>