License is unclear

[mdeverdelhan]

The LICENSE.txt file contains a LGPL 2.1 while the headers of source files are Apache 2.0 compliant. Exactly under which license the plugin is released?

[wvengen]

Good point. I see that the original sources have this as well.
The file LICENSE.txt is from 2007, while the updated headers have a commit from 2008 mentioning "Updated headers: Licensed under the Apache License". I guess Apache it is.

Anyone care to check with pyx4me people?

[cmorty]

@wvengen I'll do.

[skarzhevskyy]

The LGPL originally popup up because progurad was linked in code(in pyx4me code) at Compile Time. I believe in last version we have removed this linking and progurad is called using reflection.
Please be aware of this part! When you maintaining the code!

As to pyx4me code it was intended as Apache License.
I was unclear for me how to deal with dependencies in maven.
So because of dependency on "proguard" runtime that assume compile the LICENSE.txt (LGPL) was not removed.

If you find a proper guides on how do deal with this you can remove the LICENSE.txt (LGPL) from proguard-maven-plugin code.

[cmorty]

@wvengen, @skarzhevskyy If I get this right, we should remove the LICENSE.txt, or rather replace it with the Apache license, and change the license of the github-project to Apache. Right?

[wvengen]

Did anyone check for that ProGuard is indeed called using reflection (or fork)?
If that's the case, we can remove LICENSE.txt indeed and specify the license as Apache.

[skarzhevskyy]

As I said I have no objection for changing LICENSE.

[wvengen]

Check, let's do so! Thanks everyone for getting clarity on this.

[Lonzak]

The License on the main page ist still LGPL 2.1 (Top right corner)
https://github.com/wvengen/proguard-maven-plugin

And I just saw that the license.txt is also still LGPL. @wvengen Didn't you want to change that?

[maloewe-ona]

A few questions:

• Should the LICENSE.txt file containing the old LGPL license be deleted then? Because some tooling, such as the GitHub UI, still considers it:
  
• Should the pom.xml be adjusted as well?
  

  proguard-maven-plugin/pom.xml

  Lines 26 to 29 in 790b51e

  	<license>
  	<name>GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)</name>
  	<url>https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html</url>
  	</license>

[lasselindqvist]

@maloewe-ona can you provide a pull request for updating that? If not, I will do it when I have time.

[maloewe-ona]

@lasselindqvist, no sorry I cannot provide a pull request for this.

Though as small hint (in case this is useful); the Maven POM reference recommends that the <name> should be an SPDX identifier, so for Apache 2.0, it should probably be <name>Apache-2.0</name>.