review licensing of examples/plotly/interactive.html

[pjfanning]

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/hamilton/refs/heads/main/examples/plotly/interactive.html

File has this

* plotly.js v2.27.0
* Copyright 2012-2023, Plotly, Inc.
* All rights reserved.
* Licensed under the MIT license
*

We probably need to add this MIT license to our license. @skrawcz could you review this file and whether we need it?

[elijahbenizzy]

@pjfanning this is purely an example.

I'm wondering if it's worth having a separate repository that's a not as strict apache-licensed software for examples. That has a lot of the questionable dependencies, but are more around documentation, etc...

[skrawcz]

@pjfanning what's the consequence/impact here?

I don't believe we package anything under examples/ into any installable python package. So nothing not Apache 2 compatible would be packaged.

As for this case, it could be that in this instance we checked in something that is the output of using plotły. Can look at git blame later to check.

If this is going to cause headaches, we can remove it...

[pjfanning]

Having source files in our git repo that have non Apache licenses mentioned in them makes things ore complicated. Removing the file if it is not useful or the idea of putting the examples in a hamilton-examples repo may work. Apache Pekko has a similar approach.

• https://github.com/apache/pekko
• https://github.com/apache/pekko-samples

[skrawcz]

Hey @pjfanning the javascript code embedded in the HTML for plotly is licensed as MIT:

• plotly.js v2.27.0
• Copyright 2012-2023, Plotly, Inc.
• All rights reserved.
• Licensed under the MIT license / /! For license information please see plotly.min.js.LICENSE.txt */

Is this good? Or would it be easier to remove?

[pjfanning]

The question is what we are going to put into our source releases. If this appears in the source release, it will need to be mentioned in the LICENSE file that we put in the source release.