Hi, > Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT > source code.
That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software? > That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header > there on my own. Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way. > I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that > they > are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license. The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something else. Just as it has different copyright owner it also likely is under a different license, whose terms are very likely to be APv2 compatible, but may not be. Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
