Browsed the archives of legal-discuss knowing the problem must have
surfaced before. Found a lot of legal talk and got a major headache
from reading it, but the conclusion seems to be here on "resolved"
legal ASF cases:

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive

For those impatient (sorry for caps, copy-paste):

HOW SHOULD WORKS FOR WHICH MULTIPLE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSES ARE
AVAILABLE BE HANDLED?

When including that work's licensing, state which license is being
used and include only the license that you have chosen. Prefer
Category A to Category B to Category X. You don't need to modify the
work itself if, for example, it mentions the various licensing options
in the source headers.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Chris Hostetter
<hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> : 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.
>
> I could be wrong ... it's not like i looked very hard in the archives to
> try and find any such discussion ... It's possible my mind is just filling
> in the gaps with my own opinions.
>
> The PMC and/or Folks who care about this sort of thing might want to bring
> it up with legal-discuss and figure out what the "right" answer is.
>
>
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

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

Reply via email to