The short version is that the dual licensing was not requested in the project proposal, so we didn't know that it was to be dual licensed. My apologies if we missed this in our email exchanges during the proposal period.
I've connected directly with Gabriele to resolve this. For the group's benefit, when a project team asks for licensing that is non standard (e.g., something other than straight EPL or a licensing combination that's permitted in their top level project's charter), the EMO needs to petition either the EMO(ED) or the Board of Directors (depending on the nature of the licenses involved) to seek approval for the exception. In the case of Apache-2.0, we need EMO(ED) approval. For that, I just need a paragraph of a couple of sentences that describes why the exceptional licensing scheme is required. I've created
Bug 559430 to track this and have made it a blocker on the release review.
We should be able to resolve this quickly.
PMC members... nice catch. I still need a +1. If you'd prefer to wait for the resolution of this issue, then I defer to your wisdom.
Wayne