Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago whith Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)
Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2 persons who are listed here https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728 if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This would allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by Andrew Sykes) Jacques From: "Sam Ruby" <[email protected]> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the >> definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL >> (category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be >> licensed under category B or category C? >> >> Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and >> LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred, >> the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without >> prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL). > > Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License > > This is made available under a category A license, and it totally > acceptable for use by ASF projects. The fact that it additionally is > made available under a different license does not impose any > additional restrictions on us. This would be equally true if the > second license were proprietary. > > The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees. > As licensors, we do not dual license our code. > >> Cheers, >> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
