2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
8:08 p.m.
On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/02/2010 06:27 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Maybe, I don't know enough and my past experience is with the ASL (in the ASF we must
put the license headers on all resources), ie a non viral license.
It's also possible that it's not allowed to put our XML files under a CC license
next to other files with the LGPL license (virality issue).
-Vincent
On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Kind of, the license is in the pom. Although it does not appear in each
file, doesn't the fact that it's a file belonging to a LGPL project
almost make it LGPL too? Hi devs,
I just noticed that although we've been saying that "This wiki is
licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license", all the source files for
the wiki pages are actually under the LGPL, which contradicts the wiki.
Actually our pages are under no license right now (There's no license in the XML
files and there should be one).