On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote: > Hi, > > 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.
The answer in that document is wrong. I believe what they meant to say is that we only include one of the licenses in the text/pointers of our product-wide LICENSE file. Mainly for dual-licensed GPL. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
