Andre, You're definitely free to do such a thing - it basically sounds like a 'cyber security focused nifi powered distro' which means largely an assembly that pulls in cybersecurity specific/relevant extensions and the base framework.
You just cannot call that thing 'Apache NiFi/NiFi', need to honor its marks, and the ASLv2. But otherwise you're pretty much good to go. I do think you should consider contributing components that are ASLv2 friendly and for which their might be value in the apache nifi community directly and I think this is a great example of why we want/need an extension registry mechanism and path to provide extensions outside the big bang release. Thanks On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> wrote: > Andre, > > I’m happy to contribute and review code for this distro. I think it’s a > great idea, and hopefully will be bolstered by the Registry effort where we > can make pre-selected NAR groups for different focuses (cybersecurity, IIoT, > ML, etc.). > > Andy LoPresto > alopre...@apache.org > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > On Mar 6, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > I have been privately working on a number of "processors" focused on > orchestration of cyber security related activities (eg update firewall > rules with data provided via an HTTP endpoint) etc. > > While some of these tasks can be easily solved with generic NiFi components > or with little (or no custom processors at all) truth is that most security > practitioners just don't get it. > > Result is that unless you show up with a processor called UpdateCiscoAcl > (random example), people's brains just melt. > > I have been considering spinning up a separate project, based on a cut down > version of NiFi, that will employ the base framework towards this specific > use case by publishing specific processors that generally do not appeal to > the rest of the crowd. > > My base rationale is the following: > > - Reduce the need to add processors to the master tree and require people > to review processors that are of very limited use outside specific contexts. > - Improve overall user experience for this particular use case > - Reduce impact to the NiFi brand by the release of code that errr, may not > be up to the standards of my fellow committers ;-) > > Given my position as a PMC member and profound respect to all of you, I > would like to reach out to the rest of the team for you overall thoughts > about this? > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > >