I know I personally looked at all the licenses and that we don't have GPL. That one in particular would have had to get past all the Hadoop committers too.
-Grant On Dec 30, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Oh, fooie, never mind, given the license de-confusion over on the user list. > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The current situation, in which kfs is listed as a dependency in core, >> is not ideal. >> >> Can you commit a version of the core pom that removes it? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >>> To follow up here -- in 0.2 there were few external dependencies which were >>> managed/deployed internally within the mahout project because they were not >>> available in any other maven repository. These were given a groupId under >>> the mahout triple to avoid conflicts with the actual library should it ever >>> be officially deployed. >>> >>> There are a bunch of libraries that hadoop depends on that are really >>> unnecessary -- things like kosmofs (kfs?) and jets3t provide filesystem >>> layer alternatives to hdfs. These were included directly in the 0.2 release, >>> and had been transitively included in the 0.3 release via the current hadoop >>> 0.20.2 SNAPSHOT dependency -- these had to be excluded explicitly in the >>> parent pom (maven/pom.xml) currently in HEAD. >>> >>> On Dec 30, 2009 4:18 PM, "Drew Farris" <[email protected]> wrote >>> >>> I do not believe that kfs is needed to build or run mahout. It is an >>> optional runtime dependency brought in by hadoop. There are a couple other >>> libraries like this that are excluded in the dependency management section >>> of the parent pom in HEAD for the hadoop depedency. >>> >>>>> On Dec 30, 2009 3:01 PM, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: > > What's the scoop... >>> >>
