Just to be clear, Apache 2 licensed code CAN be included in GPL 3 projects, but GPL 3 licensed code CANNOT be included in Apache 2 projects (one-way only). http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html provides the complete story, I just raised my point early because I’ve personally witnessed the pain that results from people assuming that one FOSS license is just like any other.
More broadly, I’m assuming I’m not in the minority when I say that until this thread, I had no clue what was going on with these efforts. Easy access to a design doc in a JIRA (if one exists) should always come before an 11-page ReviewBoard drop, in my humble opinion. -Dima On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Priyadharshini Karthikeyan < [email protected]> wrote: > While generating the configure shell script from configure.ac file, > autoconf by default installs ./install.sh and ./missing. The > ownership/copyright that you are mentioning has come from those default > installs and We have not copied any outside code intentionally. I agree > these dependencies are not suppose to be checked in to the repo. > > Since Apache License version 2.0 is compatible with version 3.0 of the GPL > (GNU Public License), We used GPL for building our hbase C++ client. If it > is not supposed to be used, we will not use it. Thanks for pointing out and > I will address this as high priority. > > > > On 4/19/16, 2:50 AM, "Elliott Clark" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Whenever we added new source files, the default template injected our > >> names into those files. > >> > > > >There are copyrights from: > > > >Copyright (C) 1994 X Consortium > >Copyright (C) 1996-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >Originally written by Fran,cois Pinard <[email protected]>, 1996. > > > >None of those are you. Neither of those are auto generated from eclipse's > >templates. > >
