Clarify licensing?

[pmonks]

Currently the artifacts in the repository suggest a confusing mishmash of licenses for this project:

• the pom.xml file implies Apache-2.0 only
• the COPYING.GPL file implies GPL-3.0
• the COPYING.LESSER file implies LGPL-3.0
• and the LICENSE file appears to be attempting to imply Apache-2.0 OR LGPL-3.0+ (but because it uses the abbreviated "file header" texts instead of the full license texts, tools that attempt to detect licenses from such files, including GitHub's own license detection, are unable to do so)

Suggested solution Assuming the JFFI authors do intend to publish the work under Apache-2.0 OR LGPL-3.0+, I'd suggest:

1. remove the COPYING.GPL and COPYING.LESSER files
2. add a second <license> block within the existing <licenses> block within the pom.xml file, containing the name and URL of the LGPL-3.0+ license
3. add the full Apache-2.0 license text and the full LGPL-3.0+ license text to the LICENSE file, separated by a number of blank lines, and with text such as OR, AT YOUR DISCRETION: in the middle of the whitespace
4. (optional, but may keep FSF type folks happy) duplicate the (updated) LICENSE file and name it COPYING

[headius]

Thanks for pointing out the mishmash. At one point the original author wanted to use GPL 3, but I convinced him to switch to Apache-2. It seems we have some cleanup to do.

[headius]

@pmonks I have made these changes in #151, minus the duplicate COPYING file. If someone really wants that alongside LICENSE they can ask us for it.

[pmonks]

Thanks @headius, and no need to apologise! Licensing is one of those chores that's super easy to miss, especially if it's changed over time! Really appreciate you taking the time to sort this out.

[headius]

Thanks for the help!