www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Licensing of Sub Dependencies under Different Licenses
Date Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:50:26 GMT
Noting however that (looking on my phone, so this isn't deep review) c3po
appears to be EPL/LGPL dual licensed. Where EPL is listed on
resolved.html's binary form section.

Hen

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Tika is under the ALv2, as you say. The determination of what dependencies
> you may specifically have to leverage/consume Tika in your FOSS project
> is something we cannot know nor determine. As such cannot provide legal
> advice to 3rd parties... Sorry.
>
> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:22 AM, James Baker <james.d.baker@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Apache Tika is licensed under the ASL2 license, but a number of it's
> dependencies aren't - for example Java UnRar is licensed under the UnRar
> license, and c3p0:JDBC DataSources/Resource Pools is under LGPL.
> >
> > I'm aware that, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html,
> Java UnRar can be included in binary form so that's ok; but that same page
> explicitly says LGPL isn't allowed within Apache projects.
> >
> > Can someone explain to me how this works?
> >
> > We are looking at releasing our own open source software, dependent on
> Tika, under ASL2 but our IP people are getting a bit jumpy about the
> sub-dependencies and we're trying to work out exactly what we can and can't
> do. Any clarification anyone can give would be extremely helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>

Mime
View raw message