Yep I was part of that discussion :-) That’s my take too - just don’t :)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: <Allison>, "Timothy B." <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 13, 2015 at 5:20 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Parser that includes LGPL as "provided"? >Thank you, Nick. > >One answer to ("Will the majority of users want to use my product >without adding the optional components?") [1] would be "No, all users are >currently using Tika without this optional component. It is just another >parser that some might want to use for one file type among many." > >However, my takeaway from this discussion on [2], [3] is: don't. Just, >don't. Really, don't. > >For your suggestion: >>>(Actually, there's nothing stopping someone publishing an "all Tika >>>including LGPL" or "all Tika including GPL" pom, which auto-includes >>>these for those users who can use things under those licenses in their >>>projects, but for policy reasons it couldn't be a PMC action to publish >>>that) > >It would be more than just the pom, though. It would have to be a >separate project that included the Tika parsers that wrapped these >non-ASL libraries, or do I misunderstand? Oh, wait, are you suggesting: > >Step 1) create the Tika wrapper parser as a standalone project, Step 2) >publish the L?GPL poms to include both the Tika parsers and their >dependencies? > > >[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional > >[2] >http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201103.mbox/%3C >[email protected]%3E > >[3] >http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201103.mbox/%3C >[email protected]%3E > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nick Burch [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:51 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Parser that includes LGPL as "provided"? > >On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Allison, Timothy B. wrote: >> After I dig myself out of several other issues that I'd like to tackle, >> I'd like to add a parser for MSAccess files. There's a pure java LGPL >> library, Jackcess, available on maven, and it appears to be quite >> active. >> >> I know we have a list of third party parsers, but I'm wondering if we >> could write a Tika parser that uses Jackcess but sets it as "provided" >> in the pom. This seems to me to be equivalent to our current >>"excludes" >> statements for some other LGPL files. > >For a non-ASF apache licensed project, that'd probably be ok. However, >the >ASF legal policies are a bit stricter. > >There's a brief summary here: >http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited > >And if you check the legal-discuss@ archives >http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ for LGPL >you'll see lots of discussion about how optional features which need >LGPL, >plugins which need LGPL code etc need to be handled. > >If you think you might be able to compe up with a plan that would fit >within those rules, it's best to run it past the legal-discuss list >and/or >raise a legal jira to get it checked. If not, the parser would need to >live elsewhere and be listed on the third party plugins page, with users >who are OK with LGPL rules needing to download them themselves. > >(Actually, there's nothing stopping someone publishing an "all Tika >including LGPL" or "all Tika including GPL" pom, which auto-includes >these for those users who can use things under those licenses in their >projects, but for policy reasons it couldn't be a PMC action to publish >that) > >Nick
