I've forwarded this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (to subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Niall 2008/2/12 Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello Tika! > >> Hello Aperture! > >> > >> We (the Aperture project) have recently updated the pdfbox to the > >> current trunk version. It seems that they've introduced a new dependency > >> on the Java Advanced Imaging API (JAI). The problem is that JAI imposes > >> certain constraints on redistribution. They are summarized here: > >> > >> <http://download.java.net/media/jai/builds/release/1_1_3/DISTRIBUTIONREADME-jai.txt> > >> > >> I don't understand it and I thought it might be relevant to both > >> communities. How do you interpret this? Rumour has it that pdfbox is to > >> join ASF, which has strict legal policies. > > > > Yes PDFBox has just been accepted as an Incubator project at the ASF: > > http://incubator.markmail.org/message/nftnj3jqaoyamzlm > > > > One of the tasks of a project incubating at Apache is that licensing > > issues are sorted out before a project can "graduate" from the > > incubator to become a fully-fledged ASF project > > > > Niall > > FYI, the current thinking seems to be that the JAI jars can't > be distributed with Apache code. See for example > http://markmail.org/message/dl5wjyuodw35bsoa > > We use JAI in UIMA to build our documentation (via docbook), > but you need to give the build script permission to download > it during the build. > > As long as Tika does only source distros, it's legally ok to > have a transitive dependency on JAI, as it's not being distributed. > Aperture may have more legal leeway. > > --Thilo > >
