Licensing information is inconsistent

[ligasgr]

Hi,

While going through the codebase I've noticed that LICENSE file mentions GPLv3 while in pom.xml you reference Apache v2.
It would be good to make things clear.

Also just out of curiosity - what is the license for xqj-api which you also have as a repo?

Thanks and regards!

Btw. many thanks for all the work around XQJ!

[cfoster]

Sorry for late reply.
Everything, that includes xqj2 libraries as well as xqj implementations is going to be provided under an Apache Licence to allow maximum compatibility with other licences. Aligning all the licence information is definitely on the to do list.

[ligasgr]

What about the xqj-api? Is there any license defined for that?
Thanks!

[cfoster]

Yes. Page 2 to Page 3 of the "XQuery API for JavaTM (XQJ) 1.0 Specification" which you can get from:

http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=225

I understand "Specification License" to include both the PDF document as well as the XQJ Java interface classes (i.e. The XQJ API jar)

[ligasgr]

Ok. Thanks a lot for the response.
I shall leave this issue open as a reminder about the licensing cleanup, if you don't mind.