Hi Ingo, The other thing to realize is that Tika is a “collective” work, and that it’s collective work is licensed under the Apache software foundation license, and that the collective work and its dependencies are compatible either with ALv2, or with category-A, category-B licenses from the Apache legal resolved page.
So, it’s a permissively licensed, ASF project, which has to conform to: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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: Ingo Wiarda <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Licensing of Tika >Hi, > >generating a list of all licenses is a good idea. The last thing you >want for your product is to discover that the most recent version of a >dependency is AGPL'ed, if you plan to publish under another license. > >I have done this some time ago for the Cinnamon CMS: >http://cinnamon-cms.com/de/cinnamon-server/lizenz-ubersicht > >Note that it is probably not enough to just write "Oh, package Foo is >under BSD license" without reproducing the license text itself, as it >often contains the name of the copyright holder and may not be excluded. > >I have started to document the Tika-server licenses for a Grails plugin >which uses the server package with its dependencies*, but that is quite >a lot of work, tracking down all the packages and checking the license >files. (And just because a package can be found on the apache.org site >does not mean it's automatically Apache 2.0 License - just found one >which references an old commons-logging version with v1.1). > >A funny thing with the Apache license (as well as the GPL) is that both >require a project to generate a genuine copyright notice (see: "How to >apply the Apache license to your project" at the bottom of the original >license page.) I have seen projects that include this text, with the >placeholders intact ... so they are copyright [yyyy] "name of copyright >owner" :) > >Best regards, >Ingo > > >* https://github.com/dewarim/tikaParser/tree/master/licenses > > >Am 07/15/2015 um 03:08 AM schrieb Chris Harshman: >> I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. >> >> As a general rule, if the code is included in your project, you're >>bound by the license under which that code is made available. That >>includes dependencies. >> >> There may be some exceptions depending on the license(s) and how they >>all plug together (as a crude example, the MIT license attribution >>requirement might already be satisfied by a downstream bundler - >>upstream from you - including the necessary language). >> >> Personally, I'd conduct a review of each component if license >>compliance is important to you (e.g., if you're going to release a >>commercial product incorporating the code). >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:39 AM, James Baker <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Apache Tika is licensed under the ASL2 license, but a number of it's >>>dependencies aren't - for example Java UnRar is licensed under the >>>UnRar license. >>> >>> Can someone explain to me how this works? If I am looking at releasing >>>my own software that is dependent on Tika, can I release it under ASL2 >>>or do I also need to take into account the licenses of the >>>sub-dependencies? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> James >
