Hi Tony On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:07 -0700, tony mancill wrote: > There seem to be questions regarding the upstream source license. The > source files themselves don't mention a license, the pom.xml claims > the > MIT license, while the upstream homepage claims CDDL-1.0. Since the > project some recent upstream activity, perhaps the author could > clarify. Good spot; I think that a number of project on java.net now have inconsistent project information - there was a large migration onto a new platform early this year and I'm not sure all the information on the website is correct. I've raised a bug upstream and contacted Kohsuke (project owner) via email to get this resolved. FYI Kohsuke is really keen to see Jenkins in an official distro and has committed to resolve and blocking issues as quickly as he can. I know he is running some Jenkins training at the moment so hopefully he will pickup end of this week/next week. Cheers James -- James Page Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part