On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Fabian Christ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding the dual license problem > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-548 > I always understood the we have to identify and list all licenses of a > component. That's also why I included, e.g. the LGPL licensing text in > the LICENSE file according to [1]. My conclusion was that we also have > to list all the licenses in the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE file. But I > agree that it would be nicer if the DEPENDENCIES-BY-LICENSE would > mention dual licensed artifacts explicitly. > > [1] > http://apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses >
http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDownload ... clearly states that you have to chose one of the two licenses if you redistribute. Based on that I think it is OK to just mention the Apache License. > With the made changes in the release branch, we can create an RC5 and > cancel the vote for RC4. > +1 best Rupert -- | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 | A-5500 Bischofshofen
