I agree. But if we don't put them under the ALv2 we need to clearly mark the files as such. Like we do for the JARs in the lib directory.
But before we do anything I'd like to see if there's any answer to my questions. On 05.03.2004 21:29:39 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > But that's not the reason I write this. I've done the relicensing on the > > XML FOP project and was again confronted with our hyphenation files. Two > > of them now have the ALv2 header because for these two files all legal > > problems have been dealt with > > I don't think it is necessary to put *all* files under APL. If we can > assume the content had been granted, and there is no infformation to > the contrary and no incompatible license already in the file, we can > just leave it as it is, or perhaps add something to the effect > "... has been contributed to FOP and is assumed to be licensed > for all purposes FOP can be used. Contact the authors stated above > for further details." > (unless license@ says otherwise, of course) > Tracking down the original committer from CVS might help too, but > in general I wouldn't loose much further sleep on the whole issue. > > Of course, newly contributed files should be put under APL which > means all issues have to be resolved before the file is committed to > CVS. Jeremias Maerki
