Browsed the archives of legal-discuss knowing the problem must have surfaced before. Found a lot of legal talk and got a major headache from reading it, but the conclusion seems to be here on "resolved" legal ASF cases:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive For those impatient (sorry for caps, copy-paste): HOW SHOULD WORKS FOR WHICH MULTIPLE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSES ARE AVAILABLE BE HANDLED? When including that work's licensing, state which license is being used and include only the license that you have chosen. Prefer Category A to Category B to Category X. You don't need to modify the work itself if, for example, it mentions the various licensing options in the source headers. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Chris Hostetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > : then, who looks at those files anyway... Let's leave it as is if Chris > : says there was a discussion about it in the past. > > I could be wrong ... it's not like i looked very hard in the archives to > try and find any such discussion ... It's possible my mind is just filling > in the gaps with my own opinions. > > The PMC and/or Folks who care about this sort of thing might want to bring > it up with legal-discuss and figure out what the "right" answer is. > > > > -Hoss > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
