Hi, I'm generating a 3rdpartylicenses.txt via the angular cli ng build --prod --extractLicenses=true. This does not work with the setup of brace. According to the doc:
brace has an update script which automatically pulls down the ace builds and refactors them...
So from my point of view the license of ajaxorg is currently violated by brace because it does not retain the copyright notice of ajaxorg and provides some part of the code under a new copyright notice without the original notice text. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my current non-lawyer understanding!
This also causes that the license of ajaxorg isn't part of the generated 3rdpartylicenses.txt artifact. I would like to suggest to update the LICENSE file of brace to split the content into two sections and define which part is licensed under the current brace license and which part of the software is licensed under the ajaxorg license. Although the license is the same (MIT), the copyright notice should explicitly notice for which part brace has the copyright and for which not!
Currently, I think this is a blocker for using brace if the user does not declare the ajaxorg license by its own (he must be aware of this problem).
Hi, I'm generating a 3rdpartylicenses.txt via the angular cli
ng build --prod --extractLicenses=true. This does not work with the setup of brace. According to the doc:I guess the process removes all license (copyright information) references to https://github.com/ajaxorg/ace-builds/blob/master/LICENSE.
So from my point of view the license of ajaxorg is currently violated by brace because it does not retain the copyright notice of ajaxorg and provides some part of the code under a new copyright notice without the original notice text. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my current non-lawyer understanding!
This also causes that the license of ajaxorg isn't part of the generated 3rdpartylicenses.txt artifact. I would like to suggest to update the LICENSE file of brace to split the content into two sections and define which part is licensed under the current brace license and which part of the software is licensed under the ajaxorg license. Although the license is the same (MIT), the copyright notice should explicitly notice for which part brace has the copyright and for which not!
Currently, I think this is a blocker for using brace if the user does not declare the ajaxorg license by its own (he must be aware of this problem).