You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> on 2015/03/20 06:11:40 UTC
jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Hi
Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares itself
as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are distributed
only under LGPL, e.g.
com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
CppHighlighter.java
GroovyHighlighter.java
JavaHighlighter.java
XmlHighlighter.java
I downloaded the sources from Maven (
http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's probably
needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we e.g. omit
it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
Shai
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I've been monitoring that issue. So once TIKA-1581 is resolved we can
upgrade to the newer Tika version together with the proper jhighlight
package. If that happens before 5.1 is out, all the better.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The jhighlight people just released a 1.0.2 jar which fixes the problem.
> It has a different path in Maven, but otherwise it is compatible. See:
> https://github.com/codelibs/jhighlight/issues/4
>
> Karl
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK I opened SOLR-7317.
>>
>> Shai
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
>>> incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
>>>
>>> Upayavira
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
>>> > +1 to remove.
>>> >
>>> > > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove
>>> this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but
>>> it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
>>> > >
>>> > > Shai
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by
>>> Tika in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution
>>> would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team
>>> says.
>>> > >
>>> > > Karl
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then
>>> upgrade again.
>>> > >
>>> > > If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive
>>> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if
>>> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
>>> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users
>>> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
>>> > >
>>> > > If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
>>> > >
>>> > > Shai
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
>>> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>>> > >
>>> > > Karl
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > > You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
>>> > > easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>>> > >
>>> > > Upayavira
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>>> > > > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was
>>> added by
>>> > > > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL
>>> code too I
>>> > > > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
>>> > > > ourselves.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Shai
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
>>> > > > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies
>>> section:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
>>> > > > >
>>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
>>> > > > > -->
>>> > > > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and
>>> add any
>>> > > > > new ones
>>> > > > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
>>> > > > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec,
>>> jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
>>> > > > > asm)
>>> > > > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially
>>> LGPL code)
>>> > > > > -->
>>> > > > > ...
>>> > > > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
>>> > > > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a
>>> runtime
>>> > > > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we
>>> can omit
>>> > > > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Shai
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> Hi
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which
>>> declares
>>> > > > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its
>>> classes are
>>> > > > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>>> > > > >> CppHighlighter.java
>>> > > > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
>>> > > > >> JavaHighlighter.java
>>> > > > >> XmlHighlighter.java
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>>> > > > >>
>>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
>>> )
>>> > > > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>>> > > > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
>>> project's
>>> > > > >> website seems to not exist anymore (
>>> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess
>>> it's
>>> > > > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika.
>>> Therefore if we
>>> > > > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Shai
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>.
The jhighlight people just released a 1.0.2 jar which fixes the problem.
It has a different path in Maven, but otherwise it is compatible. See:
https://github.com/codelibs/jhighlight/issues/4
Karl
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK I opened SOLR-7317.
>
> Shai
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
>> incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
>>
>> Upayavira
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
>> > +1 to remove.
>> >
>> > > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove
>> this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but
>> it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
>> > >
>> > > Shai
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika
>> in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution
>> would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team
>> says.
>> > >
>> > > Karl
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then
>> upgrade again.
>> > >
>> > > If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive
>> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if
>> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
>> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users
>> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
>> > >
>> > > If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
>> > >
>> > > Shai
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
>> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>> > >
>> > > Karl
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
>> > > easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>> > >
>> > > Upayavira
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>> > > > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was
>> added by
>> > > > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>> > > >
>> > > > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code
>> too I
>> > > > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
>> > > > ourselves.
>> > > >
>> > > > Shai
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
>> > > > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies
>> section:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
>> > > > >
>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
>> > > > > -->
>> > > > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and
>> add any
>> > > > > new ones
>> > > > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
>> > > > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
>> xml-apis,
>> > > > > asm)
>> > > > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially
>> LGPL code)
>> > > > > -->
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
>> > > > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a
>> runtime
>> > > > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we
>> can omit
>> > > > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Shai
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which
>> declares
>> > > > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its
>> classes are
>> > > > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>> > > > >> CppHighlighter.java
>> > > > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
>> > > > >> JavaHighlighter.java
>> > > > >> XmlHighlighter.java
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>> > > > >>
>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
>> )
>> > > > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>> > > > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
>> project's
>> > > > >> website seems to not exist anymore (
>> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
>> > > > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika.
>> Therefore if we
>> > > > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Shai
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
OK I opened SOLR-7317.
Shai
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
> incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> > +1 to remove.
> >
> > > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this
> .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it
> doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika
> in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution
> would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team
> says.
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then
> upgrade again.
> > >
> > > If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive
> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if
> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users
> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
> > >
> > > If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > > You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
> > > easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
> > >
> > > Upayavira
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> > > > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was
> added by
> > > > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code
> too I
> > > > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
> > > > ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > Shai
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> > > > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies
> section:
> > > > >
> > > > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> > > > >
> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> > > > > -->
> > > > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and
> add any
> > > > > new ones
> > > > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> > > > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
> xml-apis,
> > > > > asm)
> > > > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL
> code)
> > > > > -->
> > > > > ...
> > > > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> > > > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
> > > > >
> > > > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> > > > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we
> can omit
> > > > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
> > > > >
> > > > > Shai
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which
> declares
> > > > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes
> are
> > > > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> > > > >> CppHighlighter.java
> > > > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
> > > > >> JavaHighlighter.java
> > > > >> XmlHighlighter.java
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> > > > >>
> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
> )
> > > > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> > > > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
> project's
> > > > >> website seems to not exist anymore (
> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
> > > > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika.
> Therefore if we
> > > > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Shai
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
Upayavira
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> +1 to remove.
>
> > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
> >
> > If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
> >
> > If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
> > easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> > > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
> > > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
> > >
> > > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
> > > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> > > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
> > > >
> > > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> > > > http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> > > > -->
> > > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any
> > > > new ones
> > > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> > > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
> > > > asm)
> > > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL code)
> > > > -->
> > > > ...
> > > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> > > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
> > > >
> > > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> > > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can omit
> > > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
> > > >
> > > > Shai
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi
> > > >>
> > > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
> > > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
> > > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
> > > >>
> > > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> > > >> CppHighlighter.java
> > > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
> > > >> JavaHighlighter.java
> > > >> XmlHighlighter.java
> > > >>
> > > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> > > >> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
> > > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> > > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
> > > >> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
> > > >>
> > > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
> > > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we
> > > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
> > > >>
> > > >> Shai
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.
+1 to remove.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
>
> Shai
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>
> If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
>
> If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
>
> Shai
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
> >
> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
> > >
> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> > > http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> > > -->
> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any
> > > new ones
> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
> > > asm)
> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL code)
> > > -->
> > > ...
> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
> > >
> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can omit
> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
> > >>
> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> > >> CppHighlighter.java
> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
> > >> JavaHighlighter.java
> > >> XmlHighlighter.java
> > >>
> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> > >> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
> > >> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
> > >>
> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we
> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
> > >>
> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
> > >>
> > >> Shai
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar
before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it
doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in
> any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would
> be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then
>>> upgrade again.
>>>
>>
>> If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive
>> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if
>> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
>> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users
>> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
>>
>> If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
>>
>> Shai
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
>>> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
>>>> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>>>>
>>>> Upayavira
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>>>> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was
>>>> added by
>>>> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>>>> >
>>>> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code
>>>> too I
>>>> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
>>>> > ourselves.
>>>> >
>>>> > Shai
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
>>>> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies
>>>> section:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
>>>> > >
>>>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
>>>> > > -->
>>>> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add
>>>> any
>>>> > > new ones
>>>> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
>>>> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
>>>> xml-apis,
>>>> > > asm)
>>>> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL
>>>> code)
>>>> > > -->
>>>> > > ...
>>>> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
>>>> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>>>> > >
>>>> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
>>>> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we
>>>> can omit
>>>> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Shai
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Hi
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which
>>>> declares
>>>> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes
>>>> are
>>>> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>>>> > >> CppHighlighter.java
>>>> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
>>>> > >> JavaHighlighter.java
>>>> > >> XmlHighlighter.java
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>>>> > >>
>>>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
>>>> )
>>>> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>>>> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
>>>> project's
>>>> > >> website seems to not exist anymore (
>>>> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
>>>> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore
>>>> if we
>>>> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Shai
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>.
I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in
any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would
be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says.
Karl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade
>> again.
>>
>
> If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive
> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if
> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users
> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
>
> If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
>
> Shai
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
>> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
>>> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>>>
>>> Upayavira
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>>> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added
>>> by
>>> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>>> >
>>> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code
>>> too I
>>> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
>>> > ourselves.
>>> >
>>> > Shai
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
>>> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
>>> > >
>>> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
>>> > >
>>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
>>> > > -->
>>> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add
>>> any
>>> > > new ones
>>> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
>>> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
>>> xml-apis,
>>> > > asm)
>>> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL
>>> code)
>>> > > -->
>>> > > ...
>>> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
>>> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>>> > >
>>> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
>>> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can
>>> omit
>>> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>>> > >
>>> > > Shai
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hi
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
>>> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes
>>> are
>>> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>>> > >> CppHighlighter.java
>>> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
>>> > >> JavaHighlighter.java
>>> > >> XmlHighlighter.java
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>>> > >>
>>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
>>> )
>>> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>>> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
>>> project's
>>> > >> website seems to not exist anymore (
>>> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
>>> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore
>>> if we
>>> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Shai
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
>
> although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade
> again.
>
If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive dependency
then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if for runtime
purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika corrects the
problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users to download
the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem.
If people agree, I will remove it from our code.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika
> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
>> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>>
>> Upayavira
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added
>> by
>> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>> >
>> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too
>> I
>> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
>> > ourselves.
>> >
>> > Shai
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
>> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
>> > >
>> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
>> > >
>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
>> > > -->
>> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add
>> any
>> > > new ones
>> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
>> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
>> xml-apis,
>> > > asm)
>> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL
>> code)
>> > > -->
>> > > ...
>> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
>> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>> > >
>> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
>> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can
>> omit
>> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>> > >
>> > > Shai
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi
>> > >>
>> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
>> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
>> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>> > >>
>> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>> > >> CppHighlighter.java
>> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
>> > >> JavaHighlighter.java
>> > >> XmlHighlighter.java
>> > >>
>> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>> > >>
>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
>> )
>> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
>> project's
>> > >> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/
>> ).
>> > >>
>> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
>> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore
>> if we
>> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>> > >>
>> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>> > >>
>> > >> Shai
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Karl Wright <da...@gmail.com>.
I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika dependency,
so thank you for noting the problem.
Karl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
> >
> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
> > >
> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> > >
> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> > > -->
> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any
> > > new ones
> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations,
> xml-apis,
> > > asm)
> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL
> code)
> > > -->
> > > ...
> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
> > >
> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can
> omit
> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
> > >>
> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> > >> CppHighlighter.java
> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java
> > >> JavaHighlighter.java
> > >> XmlHighlighter.java
> > >>
> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> > >>
> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar
> )
> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the
> project's
> > >> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/
> ).
> > >>
> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if
> we
> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
> > >>
> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
> > >>
> > >> Shai
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
Upayavira
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
> Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
>
> The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
> believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
> ourselves.
>
> Shai
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
> >
> > <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> > http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> > -->
> > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any
> > new ones
> > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
> > asm)
> > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL code)
> > -->
> > ...
> > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
> >
> > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can omit
> > it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
> >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
> >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
> >>
> >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> >> CppHighlighter.java
> >> GroovyHighlighter.java
> >> JavaHighlighter.java
> >> XmlHighlighter.java
> >>
> >> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> >> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
> >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
> >> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
> >>
> >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
> >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we
> >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
> >>
> >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
> >>
> >> Shai
> >>
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade.
The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
ourselves.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
> solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
>
> <!-- Tika dependencies - see
> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
> -->
> <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any
> new ones
> (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
> commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
> asm)
> WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL code)
> -->
> ...
> <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
> rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
>
> So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
> dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can omit
> it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
>
> Shai
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
>> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
>> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>>
>> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
>> CppHighlighter.java
>> GroovyHighlighter.java
>> JavaHighlighter.java
>> XmlHighlighter.java
>>
>> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
>> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
>> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
>> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>>
>> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's
>> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we
>> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>>
>> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>>
>> Shai
>>
>
>
Re: jhighlight-1.0 contains LGPL-only files
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
<!-- Tika dependencies - see
http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
-->
<!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add any new
ones
(except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging,
commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, xml-apis,
asm)
WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL code) -->
...
<dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight"
rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/>
So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime
dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we can omit
it and put a section in the NOTICE file?
Shai
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares
> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are
> distributed only under LGPL, e.g.
>
> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
> CppHighlighter.java
> GroovyHighlighter.java
> JavaHighlighter.java
> XmlHighlighter.java
>
> I downloaded the sources from Maven (
> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar)
> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo:
> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the project's
> website seems to not exist anymore (https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/).
>
> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's probably
> needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore if we e.g. omit
> it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime.
>
> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar?
>
> Shai
>