On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Christ <christ.fab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com>: >> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe <shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The LICENSE file includes references to lots of jars that are dual >>>> licensed under CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2. >>>> However, there is no indication which license has been chosen by the >>>> project. >>>> >>>> I think this is a blocker. >> >> A project does not choose a license. The license is provided by the >> copyright >> owner. We do not change that license, nor do we reduce the number of the >> available licenses to choose from, for downstream recipients. Therefore, >> it doesn't make any sense to indicate which one is "chosen". >> > > I am following all these discussions for doing a first release of > Apache Stanbol (incubating) but get totally confused. According to > > http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive > > you have to choose the license and include only the license that you > have chosen.
Hi, Fabian, With Roy objecting to the practice codified in that documentation, it seems as though we no longer have consensus in either the Incubator PMC or the ASF at large as to what you ought to do. For the time being, I suggest you do either one. :) If an Incubator PMC member feels strongly enough about this issue -- either way -- and believes that it should block all future affected releases, please speak up on this thread. Otherwise, we should accept that in the absence of consensus, we can advise but should not vote -1 on a given release candidate until the matter is resolved. Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to distribute a product bundling such a dependency without explicitly justifying our usage, and legally OK for a downstream consumer to distribute a product bundling ours which asserts usage of the dependency under a different rationale. Regarding the current documented recommendation, though, I don't think it is actively harmful, because I don't believe we are doing anything which violates the terms under which multi-licensed products are typically made available. Therefore, in my opinion we can put this controversy in a queue for legal-discuss@a.o, to be dealt with after the more pressing matter of bundled jar files. :) Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
