I am hesitant about the legal ramifications of dual-licensing,  
particularly when people respond with contributions.  It's a real  
rat's nest.  But we can probably ultimately relicense ECJ and MASON  
under Apache one day.  Fortunately, because it's academic-licensed,  
licensing issues have proven quite rare -- I think I've had maybe  
three concerns about licensing ECJ in well over a decade.  :-)

Sean


On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Robert Baruch wrote:

> Sean,
>
> Have you considered dual-licensing ECJ? There's some standard  
> verbiage floating about that lets the user license under A or B at  
> the user's choice...
>
> --Rob
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Sean Luke wrote:
>
>> Peter, almost all of ECJ is distributed under the AFL 3.0, because  
>> at the time it was the best available academic open source  
>> license.  We'd probably license it under Apache nowadays.  The FSF  
>> (pretty controversally) has been claiming that the AFL and GPL are  
>> incompatible, basically because the AFL is better written with  
>> regard to jurisdiction clauses etc., even though one of the AFL's  
>> license grants is to replace the license.  AFL's author (Lawrence  
>> Rosen) disagrees.
>>
>> Anyway, ECJ was meant to be used widely.  As far as I am concerned,  
>> ECJ can be freely mingled with code of any other license, such as  
>> Weka, for whatever project you like.