|
From: <rg...@sd...> - 2003-07-06 05:41:29
|
>>>>> "Max" == Max Khesin <ma...@to...> writes: Max> Max> Hi Rob, Max> all of this is great if you are not modifying the original Max> code. Let's say you are tightly integrating your code with Max> clucene, via source rather than a shared library. You may be ok Max> with lgpl, or somebody can theoretically come and demand you to Max> publish all your code under 'derived works' clause. Maybe you Max> will win the case, after shelling out your hard-earned money for Max> lawers or maybe you will loose or give up. This is very Max> improbable, but you cannot have real peace of mind without a Max> short clear license like apache. There's no "maybe" about it, if you distribute a binary that is produced partitially from LGPL code and doesn't provide all the source, you will be in violation of the license, unless incorporates the LGPL code through the specific method of linking the library (and provided source to that library, including any changes you made). It would not be a "somebody" who sued, the only person who could sue you for that would be the author or authors of CLucene; so at least you know who to buy off ;) Max> And apache would not prevent people like me from Max> contributing/improving the main open-source apache. Both licenses would allow you to share your changes if you wanted, so that's not really the issue is it ? The issue is that you want to NOT share your changes, and the LGPL doesn't allow that and the Apache does. It's not my code and I'm plunging ahead with either license. However, if you wanted some of my code under the Apache license, I would make you pay for it -- my reasoning being that I get something for my code, either access to better versions of it, or money. Max> This is what I would LIKE to do. Without having a license which Max> will give me a peace of mind I would rather, frankly, start from Max> scratch. Anyway, like Doug said, 'with lgpl people complained and Max> with apache the complains stopped'. So I am going to have to keep Max> complaining :). Swish-e is also debating going through a license change discussion, you might go over to there forum and complain there too :) They have mentioned the BSD license, which would statisfy your requirements. I have conducted a pretty energetic search of all the various index / search tools looking for what was under which license. The Managing Gigabytes stuff is GPL, but there are a small number of authors so you might ask about a license change there. The original SWISH was "GPL or LGPL" according to the announcement: http://www.rice.edu/sw/swish/patches/kevinh.19970916.html And htdig and just about everyone else is GPL, and when they aren't GPL they are written in Java or Perl or another inappropriate language. Or else they are designed to be used through a web interface, and would need modification to make them into a general library. There are small projects for searching specific things like bibliographies, but none of them seem to have the robustness and development that lucene/clucene have. Max> BTW a commonly used dataset for searching can be found here: Max> Max> http://www.daviddlewis.com/resources/testcollections/reuters21578/ I had heard of this, I think it was referenced in the very good book "Managing Gigabytes". ( http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/mg/ ) I was wanting something easy for sanity testing, and something I knew I could re-distribute to you guys, so I could make tar file and send it and say "see, search for this and then grep for it, something's wrong." It's actually only 8 MB, that's not bad maybe I'll just use it. --Rob |