Hi, regarding the dual licensing I found this interesting post from Roy Fielding
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg34292.html It says, that it does not make any sense to chose a license. If an artifact is dual licensed then it is dual licensed - no need to chose. I think our process to mention all licenses is perfectly fine here ;) It is a difficult topic and every podling that I have followed so far has problems to get this right. Best, - Fabian Am 26. März 2012 13:14 schrieb Rupert Westenthaler <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Regarding the dual license problem >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548 >> I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a >> component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in >> the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have >> to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I >> agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would >> mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly. >> >> [1] >> http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses >> > > http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload > > ... clearly states that you have to chose one of the two licenses > if you redistribute. Based on that I think it is OK to just mention > the Apache License. > > >> With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and >> cancel the vote for RC4. >> > > +1 > > best > Rupert > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
