Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
being able to dual-license their contributions to GPL and Apache. I
believe there was a fairly strong consensus against it, including from
one or more ASF board members. Others may remember the details
better.
We
On 4/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
being able to dual-license their contributions to GPL and Apache. I
believe there was a fairly strong consensus against it, including from
one or more ASF board members. Others may remember the details
better.
We have one license on work th
On 4/29/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 02:57, Ben van Klinken wrote:
> For historical reasons, CLucene is dual licensed as Apache 2.0 license
> or LGPL. As I understand it, the apache license is currently is not
> compatible with GPL projects and therefore
On Saturday 29 April 2006 02:57, Ben van Klinken wrote:
> For historical reasons, CLucene is dual licensed as Apache 2.0 license
> or LGPL. As I understand it, the apache license is currently is not
> compatible with GPL projects and therefore GPL projects can't
> distribute apache licensed softwar
You might want to contact the Lucene project (Lucene long ago left Jakarta).
Also, see: http://incubator.apache.org/lucene4c/.
> As I understand it, the apache license is currently is not
> compatible with GPL projects and therefore GPL projects can't
> distribute apache licensed software
Opinion
Hi,
I am the lead developer for CLucene, an open source search engine
based on Apache Lucene. We recently fixed some of our licensing issues
we were having (code that wasn't license-incompatible) and are trying
comply properly with all our licensing. We have been invited to apply
for incubation a
