You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tika.apache.org by Antoni Myłka <an...@gmail.com> on 2008/02/12 15:31:05 UTC
PDFBox licensing issues.
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. I personally don't like the
idea of agreeing to defend Sun against anything.
I've posted it on the pdfbox forum.
<http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4773531>
I guess the pdfbox forum might be the best place to continue this
discussion.
All kinds of comments welcome.
Antoni Mylka
antoni.mylka@gmail.com
Re: PDFBox licensing issues.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
I've forwarded this to pdfbox-dev@incubator.apache.org
(to subscribe: pdfbox-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org)
Niall
2008/2/12 Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <an...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
Fwd: PDFBox licensing issues.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>
Date: 2008/2/12
Subject: Re: PDFBox licensing issues.
To: tika-dev@incubator.apache.org
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <an...@gmail.com> 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
Re: PDFBox licensing issues.
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <an...@gmail.com> 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
Re: PDFBox licensing issues.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <an...@gmail.com> 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
> I personally don't like the
> idea of agreeing to defend Sun against anything.
>
> I've posted it on the pdfbox forum.
>
> <http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4773531>
>
> I guess the pdfbox forum might be the best place to continue this
> discussion.
>
> All kinds of comments welcome.
>
> Antoni Mylka
> antoni.mylka@gmail.com
>