Lets end the debate on this pending the ongoing PMC discussions. There isn't a release pending that I'm aware of that needs this change to be committed urgently, so there's no need to rush to judgement on anything, or to further debate what can and can't be done with licenses at Apache. The policy is documented and available for anyone to read: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Antonio Petrelli <antonio.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/1/25 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>: >>> EPL is more restrictive than ASLv2, therefore it is OK for EPL licensed >>> projects to consume ASLv2 code... on the other hand it is not so acceptible >>> for ASLv2 licensed projects to consume EPL licensed projects. >> >> That is completely not true. Read the actual document you linked to. An >> Apache project can consume EPL binaries. > > For more info about accepted licenses: > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories > IOW, you can link to any A and B licensed software without any problem. > A particular case is LGPL. The license allows you to link to a > LGPL-licensed software, however you cannot redistribute it in an > Apache Licensed package. > > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
