On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 08/06/15 18:10, Andres Almiray a écrit : >> Don't want to throw a rock into the pond but what about all doc >> contributions made so far by external committers (i.e github PRs). Wouldn't >> changing the license require everyone to agree to the new terms? >> >> Is it really mandatory to relicense everything to ASL2? What about icon >> resources found in groovy-console? AFAIk those come from famfamfam's Silk >> icon set which IIRC are not ASL2 either. >> >> Keep it simple. Code is ASL2, resources and docs CC or equivalent, OSI >> certified and ASf compatible, wouldn't it? > > Everything that can be relicensed to AL 2.0 should be : this makes life > way easier. > > For everything else, check their license, exclude them from the rat > check if they are AL 2.0 compatible, or remove those files and replace > them by somthing which is AL 2.0 compatible otherwise, and add what is > necessary into the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
That was my point around better RAT reporting (e.g. not relying on exclusion, but rather adding compatible licenses to the check). I don't really care much what license the docs end up under as long as it is: 1. ALv2 compatible 2. It is clearly identifiable by just looking at the files Thanks, Roman.
