But we'd release the binaries and sources, right ? Not only a pom file. In that case, we need to abide by the licensing of the original jar, meaning we can't relicense a LGPL jar under ASL2.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 21:08, Harald Wellmann <hwellmann...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 26.01.2012 20:53, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > >> What kind of licensing model do you have in mind ? >> Each repackaged bundle would be licensed under the original license, >> be it ASL2, MIT/BSD, LGPL or GPL ? >> That's really the only thing I'm slightly worried about, but otherwise +1 >> > > I'd say the default should be ASL2, as for all of OPS4J. > > GPLv3 is compatible with ASL2, as I recently learned through a discussion on > the Neo4j mailing list. (But GPLv2 is not.) > > Anyway, the general idea is: We're only adding packaging, so users are free > to do whatever they want with our POM under ASL terms, but at the same time > they are bound by the licensing terms of the upstream artifact. > > Including the original licenses in the bundles should be on the pre-release > checklist. > > Cheers, > Harald > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
