Licensing discrepancy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licensing discrepancy

Frank Ryan
While looking at the notice to be included when using any of the commons jar
files, it appears that there is a discrepancy that while not a major issue
may want to be corrected.  In the projects I have looked include the Apache
1.1 License while the commons site says everything is licensed under the
Apache 2.0 license.  Does anyone have any insight on this?

An example is the commons-dbcp              

Frank

               
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing discrepancy

Martin Cooper
On 7/21/05, Frank Ryan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While looking at the notice to be included when using any of the commons jar
> files, it appears that there is a discrepancy that while not a major issue
> may want to be corrected.  In the projects I have looked include the Apache
> 1.1 License while the commons site says everything is licensed under the
> Apache 2.0 license.  Does anyone have any insight on this?

When we switched to the ASL 2.0, we did not retrofit existing releases
with the new license. However, all new releases since that time have
used ASL 2.0. I believe DBCP hasn't had a release for some time now,
so it's quite likely that it still has the ASL 1.1.

--
Martin Cooper


> An example is the commons-dbcp
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing discrepancy

Paul Libbrecht
In reply to this post by Frank Ryan
As far as I know everything should be under Apache 2.0 license, at
least everything released since about 6 months. Maybe DBCP's releases
are older ?

paul


Le 21 juil. 05, à 16:38, Frank Ryan a écrit :

> While looking at the notice to be included when using any of the
> commons jar
> files, it appears that there is a discrepancy that while not a major
> issue
> may want to be corrected.  In the projects I have looked include the
> Apache
> 1.1 License while the commons site says everything is licensed under
> the
> Apache 2.0 license.  Does anyone have any insight on this?
>
> An example is the commons-dbcp
>
> Frank
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]