Licensing of Sub Dependencies under Different Licenses

[James Baker <ja...@gmail.com>]

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, and *c3p0:JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools* is under LGPL.

I'm aware that, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html,
Java UnRar can be included in binary form so that's ok; but that same page
explicitly says LGPL isn't allowed within Apache projects.

Can someone explain to me how this works?

We are looking at releasing our own open source software, dependent on
Tika, under ASL2 but our IP people are getting a bit jumpy about the
sub-dependencies and we're trying to work out exactly what we can and can't
do. Any clarification anyone can give would be extremely helpful.

Thanks,
James

Re: Licensing of Sub Dependencies under Different Licenses

[Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>]

Noting however that (looking on my phone, so this isn't deep review) c3po
appears to be EPL/LGPL dual licensed. Where EPL is listed on
resolved.html's binary form section.

Hen

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Tika is under the ALv2, as you say. The determination of what dependencies
> you may specifically have to leverage/consume Tika in your FOSS project
> is something we cannot know nor determine. As such cannot provide legal
> advice to 3rd parties... Sorry.
>
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:22 AM, James Baker <james.d.baker@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> 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, and c3p0:JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools is under LGPL.
> >
> > I'm aware that, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html,
> Java UnRar can be included in binary form so that's ok; but that same page
> explicitly says LGPL isn't allowed within Apache projects.
> >
> > Can someone explain to me how this works?
> >
> > We are looking at releasing our own open source software, dependent on
> Tika, under ASL2 but our IP people are getting a bit jumpy about the
> sub-dependencies and we're trying to work out exactly what we can and can't
> do. Any clarification anyone can give would be extremely helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>

Re: Licensing of Sub Dependencies under Different Licenses

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Tika is under the ALv2, as you say. The determination of what dependencies
you may specifically have to leverage/consume Tika in your FOSS project
is something we cannot know nor determine. As such cannot provide legal advice to 3rd parties... Sorry.

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:22 AM, James Baker <ja...@gmail.com> 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, and c3p0:JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools is under LGPL.
> 
> I'm aware that, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, Java UnRar can be included in binary form so that's ok; but that same page explicitly says LGPL isn't allowed within Apache projects.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how this works?
> 
> We are looking at releasing our own open source software, dependent on Tika, under ASL2 but our IP people are getting a bit jumpy about the sub-dependencies and we're trying to work out exactly what we can and can't do. Any clarification anyone can give would be extremely helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> James


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org