While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for Contributed Plugins. Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would de facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily take a plugin into core. Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g. commercial, Apache, ... Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a new one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment form you have to license attachments to Apache. What do you think? Thanks, Juergen -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
