Ambiguous license notice in code files

[pombredanne]

Code files have this type of notice:

//  This source code is licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the
//  COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License
//  (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory).

Taken alone such a notice is a tad ambiguous? do both the GPL AND the Apache license apply at the same time? or is this choice?

Of course the README makes this clear that this is a choice (e.g. OR, not AND):

License

RocksDB is dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory). You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses.

It would be great to have clear source code-level notices.

This has been found by @royaljust

[silence-coding]

Any progress on this issue? I believe it should be a relatively straightforward task that can be quickly addressed.

[heilengleng]

Any progress on this issue? I believe it should be a relatively straightforward task that can be quickly addressed.

[lidong14]

@ramvadiv This issue has caused me the same confusion. Please handle it, thanks.

[silence-coding]

@ajkr Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you've been involved in multiple discussions about licensing. I'd like to ask who can handle this issue? It seems the delegate has been inactive for quite some time.

[ajkr]

Any progress on this issue? I believe it should be a relatively straightforward task that can be quickly addressed.

Changing the source file license text of a large company's open source project sounds extremely unlikely to be straightforward. I can't offer anything more than a referral to the README: "RocksDB is dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory). You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses." I do not know who can offer more than that.

[y2361547758]

According to the definition of SPDX

If required to simultaneously comply with two or more licenses, use the conjunctive binary "AND" operator to construct a new license expression, where both the left and right operands are a valid license expression values.

Most of the file header is

//  Copyright (c) 2011-present, Facebook, Inc.  All rights reserved.
//  This source code is licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the
//  COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License
//  (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory).
//

It may caues some confusion when trying to partially introduce code.

[silence-coding]

Any progress on this issue? I believe it should be a relatively straightforward task that can be quickly addressed.

Changing the source file license text of a large company's open source project sounds extremely unlikely to be straightforward. I can't offer anything more than a referral to the README: "RocksDB is dual-licensed under both the GPLv2 (found in the COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License (found in the LICENSE.Apache file in the root directory). You may select, at your option, one of the above-listed licenses." I do not know who can offer more than that.

You're probably right. For large-scale projects, such modifications would likely entail significant review costs. However, I believe the risk of bulk license replacement should be manageable.