> I'm having a feeling of deja-vu. I thought this was discussed a long time 
> ago, [...]

Might have been and I forgot. To be honest, I don't really care, but I
thought it's an oversight.

> what we keep in ./licenses should be the *entire* LICENSE file from each
> dependency, verbatim -- regardless of if/when it's offered under multiple
> licenses -- so that if someone says "XYZ is GPL." we can say "no it's not,
> it's dual licenses CDDL or GPL, here's the entire copy of the LICENSE file
> provided with that code"

Ok, makes sense. Although to me, as a non-lawyer, by using a library
and redistributing it you're effectively agreeing to accept one of the
licenses anyway, with the freedom to pick any of the licenses offered.
And you should make it explicit which license it is. It looks odd to
me that ASF software ships with subcomponents offered under GPL... But
then, who looks at those files anyway... Let's leave it as is if Chris
says there was a discussion about it in the past.

D.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to