lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: 8 for 1.4
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:34:46 GMT

On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Matthias Epheser wrote:

> Grant Ingersoll schrieb:
>> Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't  
>> know what else to propose.  Why don't we just hold it from this  
>> release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and  
>> others to submit their changes?  Perhaps by then Matthias or you or  
>> someone else will have stepped up.
> concerning GPL:
> The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much  
> from initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get  
> their new code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired  
> by the still existing Apache License solrjs.
> Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of  
> legal issues. So what do you think?

Oh, it's legally fine.  The ASL let's you do pretty much whatever you  
want.  But that is pretty much the point.  You're taking code with no  
restrictions on it and putting a whole slew of them back in,  
preventing Solr from ever distributing it in the future.  Something  
about that stinks to me.   There is a pretty large reason why we do  
our work at the ASF and not under GPL.  I won't go into it here, but  
suffice it to say one can go read volumes of backstory on this  
elsewhere by searching for GPL vs ASL (or BSD).  Furthermore,  
Matthias, it may be the case in the future that all that work you did  
for SolrJS may not even be accessible to you, the original author,  
under the GPL terms, depending on the company (many, many companies  
explicitly forbid GPL), etc. that you work for.  Is that what you want?

Also, they can't call it SolrJS, though, as that is the name of our  

View raw message