On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
Yes.
I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to minimize
the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry
the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting
out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time,
I'm fine with skipping it.
Michael
alex
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
The troublesome files come with the following header:
/*
* Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
* Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
* (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
* Initial Developer: H2 Group
*/
I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
Regards,
Thomas
