On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:01:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 2012/4/26 Dmitry Nezhevenko <dion@inhex.net>:
>
> > Actually this package provides common API for a few different compressors.
> > So it's up to users to choose which one to use.
>
> I see.
>
> > I've already got response for upstream. File jsmin.py itself in package
> > will have no "special" license as it's just "wrapper" around non-free
> > jsmin. So special licensing will be removed from LICENSE.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > Is it ok to patch such "jsmin.py" wrapper now to do nothing?
>
> Unfortunatley not, since the non-free jsmin.py will still be
> distributed in the orig.tar.gz unless you unpack it.
Hmm. Really? jsmin.py in pacakge is just some "wrapper" code to use
JSMin with package:
---
from pipeline.compressors import CompressorBase
class JSMinCompressor(CompressorBase):
"""
JS compressor based on the Python library jsmin
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsmin/).
"""
def compress_js(self, js):
from jsmin import jsmin
return jsmin(js)
---
But some times ago jsmin was distributed in tarball:
https://github.com/cyberdelia/django-pipeline/blob/1.1.27/pipeline/compressors/jsmin/jsmin.py
And since 1.2 JSMin source was removed from tarball at all. It was
replaced with quoted piece of code. The only issue is outdated LICENSE
that licenses this wrapper under "Good, not Evil" license. But once this
will be be fixed, it should be ok to patch this wrapper without repacking.
Am I right?
--
WBR, Dmitry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature