It is good to be clear.
As general comment, licensing is not a problem when handled early. It is
if it is ignored and has to be sorted out after release(s) that gets messy.
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
Eclipse Distribution License 1.0 is "category A" - it is like an BSD
license without the advertising clause. We need to add some text to the
NOTICE.
Eclipse Public License 1.0 is "category B" (it is a weak copyleft
license) and binaries from such code can be included (i.e. shading) with
appropriate labelling.
For JTS:
https://github.com/locationtech/jts/blob/master/LICENSES.md
JTS is dual-licensed under:
Eclipse Public License 1.0
Eclipse Distribution License 1.0
with some BSD/3-clause code:
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/JTS-ORA-Contribution
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/JTS-Shapefile-Contribution
Andy
On 14/12/2018 20:26, Marco Neumann wrote:
Excellent news.
On Fri 14 Dec 2018 at 20:00, Greg Albiston <galbis...@mail.com> wrote:
Hi Marco,
The JTS project has been re-licenced last year as Eclipse Publish
License and Eclipse Distribution License, which are Apache compatible
AFAIK.
Thanks,
Greg
On 14/12/2018 19:53, Marco Neumann wrote:
In addition could you or someone with an Apache connection clarify the
situation around the JTS license. I remember that the Lucene project
voted
not to include the JTS dependencies due to its LGPL license. Is that not
an
issue anymore? Is there a different situation for the Jena project?
