I too find GPL to be confusing enough that I (and I am not alone)
consider it to be poisonous fruit that I simply do not touch.
I earn my living working as an employee developing software for
companies that sell it, or rights to use it, for money and do not
publish their product source code any more than Coca Cola gives away the
recipe for its flagship beverage.
As I understand it, if I consume a JAR that falls under GPL in my work,
even if I only consume the JAR's functionality and do not modify it,
however small and "insignificant" that JAR's contribution may be to the
whole, that use opens my employer to a lawsuit because my source code is
in essence and in fact built atop that GPL'd component.
Maybe my interpretation is born of irrational paranoia, but it's how it
looks to me. To me, GPL means software to be used by academics and
people who develop software for their health only.
Thoughts? (Yeah, this isn't really the forum for it.)
On 03/01/2017 04:40 AM, Uwe Geercken wrote:
Hello,
what would be the appropriate way to license the processors? Is it an
annotation, a seperate license file or something else?
To the GPL3: This is what wikipedia says:
The *GNU General Public License* (*GNU GPL* or *GPL*) is a widely used
free software license
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license>, which
guarantees end users <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_user> the
freedom to run, study, share and modify the software.^[6]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-blackduck2015-6>
The license was originally written by Richard Stallman
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman> of the Free Software
Foundation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation>
(FSF) for the GNU Project <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project>,
and grants the recipients of a computer program
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program> the rights of the
Free Software Definition
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition>.^[7]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-7>
The GPL is a copyleft <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft>
license, which means that derivative work
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work> can only be
distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to
permissive free software licenses
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licenses>, of
which the BSD licenses <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses>
and the MIT License <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License> are
widely used examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use.
Historically, the GPL license family has been one of the most popular
software licenses in the free and open-source software
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software>
domain.^[6]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-blackduck2015-6>
^[8]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-wheeler1997-8>
^[9]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-redhat2000-9>
^[10]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-freecode2008-10>
^[11]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-mattasay2011-11>
^[12]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-waltervanholst2013-12>
^[13]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-blackduck2013-13>
Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the
Linux kernel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel> and the GNU
Compiler Collection
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection> (GCC). David
A. Wheeler <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Wheeler> argues
that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of
Linux <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel>-based systems,
giving the programmers who contributed to the kernel the assurance
that their work would benefit the whole world and remain free, rather
than being exploited by software companies that would not have to give
anything back to the community.^[14]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#cite_note-14>
The ruleengine is under GPL3. So users acan freely use, embed or share
it. It is only derivative work, that needs to be distributed under the
same lisence terms. So what would be the problem with the Nifi
processor? Can somebody explain that to me.
Also, I would be glad to have a quick explanation of what the core
differences or advantages are of Apache 2.0 versus GPL3. That would
help me understand the issue better.
Greetings and thanks for feedback.
Uwe
*Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 01. März 2017 um 03:33 Uhr
*Von:* "Angry Duck Studio" <[email protected]>
*An:* [email protected]
*Betreff:* Re: new Nifi Processors
Hi, Uwe,
These look useful. However, typically custom processors are either
Apache 2.0 or MIT licensed. These don't seem to specify a license, but
your business rule engine (jare) seems to be GPL 3.0 licensed. I'm not
sure that fits with most uses of NiFi.
Can you please clarify?
Thanks
-Matt
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Uwe Geercken <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I just wanted to let you know, that I have created four processors
for Nifi
1) GenerateData - generates random data (test data) based on word
lists, regular expressions or purely random
2) RuleEngine - a ruleengine which allows to process complex
business logic. But the logic is maintained in a separate web app
and thus outside of the flow. If the logic changes the flow does
NOT have to change.
3) SplitToAttribute - splits a single CSV row into flow file
attributes
4) MergeTemplate - merges flow file attributes with an Apache
Velocity template and writes the result to the flow file content
Please give them a try and let me know your findings and thoughts.
https://github.com/uwegeercken/nifi_processors
rgds,
Uwe
