Hi Ugo,
I'm OK with waiting and discussing a bit. In any case, the README.txt
has now been modified to read as follows
<http://code.google.com/p/eid-applet/source/browse/trunk/README.txt?spec=svn213&r=213
>:
"The source code of the eID Applet Project is licensed under GNU
LGPL v3.0.
Part of the source code (OOXML signature code) is dual-licensed
under both
the GNU LGPL v3.0 and the Apache License v2.0. Only the files with a
header
containing both the GNU LGPL v3.0 and Apache License v2.0 license
texts are
dual-licensed. The dual-licensing was offered in response to a
request from
the Apache POI open source project. All other source code files
remain under
control of the GNU LGPL v3.0 license unless otherwise decided in the
future
by _ALL_ eID Applet Project copyright holders."
This is a good clarification to a point. I am not sure if it is
sufficient. It makes me wonder who _ALL_ the copyright holders are. I
assume that the files dual licensed are all FedICT's which is Belgium
Federal Government (and EU?)
Here is what is currently in the NOTICE:
This product contains parts that were originally based on the eID
Applet project (http://code.google.com/p/eid-applet/). Copyright (C)
2008-2009 FedICT.
Here is a suggestion:
This product contains an ASLv2 licensed version of the OOXML signer
package from the eID Applet project (http://code.google.com/p/eid-applet/source/browse/trunk/README.txt
) Copyright (C) 2008-2009 FedICT.
I think that no matter what phrasing is used we should make sure that
le...@apache approves. I wonder if they will want a CCLA from FedICT.
Regards,
Dave
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
