> "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses： > 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0; > 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.” > How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure if it’s an issue or not.
These two dependencies are designed and implemented specifically for Apache APISIX, and will always keep the Apache 2.0 license for Apache APISIX. At the same time, we don't want just use these two dependencies instead of Apache APISIX as a whole, so we've set up a dual licenses. For Apache APISIX, I don't think there is a license issue because both are the Apache 2.0 license. If I'm wrong, please correct me and we can fix it. Thanks, Ming Wen, Apache APISIX & Apache SkyWalking Twitter: _WenMing Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> 于2020年6月25日周四 下午2:51写道： > HI, > > +1 (binding) > > I checked: > - incubating in name > - signature and hash is fine > - DISCLAIMER exists > - NOTICE and LICENSE are all good > - No unextedtcd binary files > - All ASF file have correct headers > - Can compile > > > I did notice one odd thing I’ve not noticed before. In [1][2] > > "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses： > 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0; > 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.” > > How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure > if it’s an issue or not. > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. ./deps/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.1/jsonschema/0.8-0/doc/LICENSE > 2. ./deps/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.1/lua-resty-radixtree/1.9-0/doc/LICENSE > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
