Yet we're perfectly happy to include an Apache licensed (or many other
licenses) dependency with a product; and to accept numerous smaller
patches under the Apache license.
It's an inconsistency and if we can't get a CLA/SGA for some piece of
code that was formerly under AL 2.0, I'm not sure why i
+1
The main thing is that Apache must be able to rely upon the license
contained in the files.
This is the same reason that we don't routinely accept contributions
that are licensed "in the public domain".
Just because a file says it has a particular license doesn't mean that
the contri
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I'm just curious. Do we still need an SGA for a podling codebase that's AL
> 2.0 licensed?
Do we know that the people who placed the AL 2.0 license headers on
that code have sufficient rights to do so? A signed statement that
"Licensor
I'm just curious. Do we still need an SGA for a podling codebase that's AL 2.0
licensed?
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator
