pdfbox-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Fwd: PDFBox licensing issues.
Date Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:09:15 GMT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@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 <antoni.mylka@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
Mime
View raw message