Still some apache-2.0 licenses in the source tree

[LocutusOfBorg]

Hi,

./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/main.cpp:* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/main.cpp:*      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/android_native_app_glue.h: * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/android_native_app_glue.h: *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/android_native_app_glue.c: * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
./Release/tests/common/TestRunner/vs14.android/TestRunner.android.NativeActivity/android_native_app_glue.c: *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
./Release/src/build/package_info.xml:    <licenseUrl>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0</licenseUrl>
./Release/src/http/client/x509_cert_utilities.cpp:    java_local_ref<jclass> strictHostnameVerifierClass(env->FindClass("org/apache/http/conn/ssl/StrictHostnameVerifier"));

[LocutusOfBorg]

Also this file is not MIT

Release/include/cpprest/details/SafeInt3.hpp
Copyright: Microsoft Corporation
License: Ms-PL

[megaposer]

I'd like to chime in that this also needs to be addressed, so legal departments can safely allow usage of the library and shipping Software based on it, see #270. I know, this might sound like nit-picking, but within the corporate environment one cannot get 3rd party usage approvals if the licenses are inconsistent.

So, could we please have a 2.9.2 "release" to address this?

[ras0219-msft]

The main.cpp and glue files are still licensed under Apache because they originate from the android NDK:

/*
 * Copyright (C) 2010 The Android Open Source Project
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");

These pieces are also only used for the android test runner and are not present in applications using the actual cpprestsdk runtimes.

SafeInt3.hpp is also a separate piece of software from cpprestsdk, so it is not subject to this license change (it was Ms-PL before, so we've left it as-is).

Please do ask more questions if this is at all unclear.

[megaposer]

Thanks for your clarification. The SafeInt3.hpp separate license has become kind of a headache. Would it be at all possible to contact the original authors (Microsoft) and re-license this single file under MIT?

I am not sure it is sufficient to just contain the license in the header file (only) as you distribute the C++ REST SDK as source code. It also makes discovering additional licenses in sub-components a burden for the users of the library and causes legal insecurities. Also, does distribution of the overall MIT licensed C++ REST SDK in compiled/object code comply with the requirements of the MS-PL header file?