Hi, On 9/6/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a concrete example, look at Axis. At some point in its lifetime, WSDL4J > was added to the distribution, and that's licensed under the CPL. Someone > coming in and looking at Axis might reasonably assume that it's licensed > under the Apache License, and not be aware that there's another license > hiding in there. If that someone was a company (e.g. my employer) that > forbids the use of CPL-licensed software, that can have very serious > consequences, especially if the package was already in use before the > dependency was introduced.
Exactly, see [1] for a real case where this dependency caused a problem. I personally don't see a problem in having CPL or other Class B dependencies, but it would be good to include prominent notices on projects that have them. Perhaps I'll follow up on legal-discuss on the details. In any case I'm with Garrett on not holding JSPWiki up to a standard that we don't properly document or even follow in all cases. [1] http://www.nabble.com/wsdl4j-license-inconsistency-tf3363493.html#a9373144 BR, Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
