PDFBox licensing issues.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

PDFBox licensing issues.

Antoni Mylka-2
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
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PDFBox licensing issues.

Niall Pemberton
On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PDFBox licensing issues.

Thilo Goetz
Niall Pemberton wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PDFBox licensing issues.

Niall Pemberton
I've forwarded this to [hidden email]

(to subscribe: [hidden email])

Niall

2008/2/12 Thilo Goetz <[hidden email]>:

> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2008 2:31 PM, Antoni Myłka <[hidden email]> 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
>
>