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. :-)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Robert Baruch wrote:
> 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...
> 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.