Thanks for all your resposes and help. One last question (at least for the moment ;-) ):
Should I place a license file in the nar file? Or is it enough to place it in the code? Any conventions from the Apache side? Rgds, Uwe > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. März 2017 um 15:53 Uhr > Von: "Matt Burgess" <mattyb...@apache.org> > An: users@nifi.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Re: Re: new Nifi Processors > > Uwe, > > If your NAR can be licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0, > then you shouldn't run into any issues with other folks want to > package your software, they can even package it up and license it > under a commercial (paid) license; the ASL 2.0 is pretty permissive. > There are some patent protections in there, as well as some rules > about explicitly specifying any code you've changed, and rules about > use of the project name (like you can't sell a version of NiFi with > your additional NAR and call it "NiFi++"). > > Regards, > Matt > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Uwe Geercken <uwe.geerc...@web.de> wrote: > > Thanks Andrew, > > > > Matt also pointed me to the same direction. > > > > But my question is, what if I switch to the Apache license model and some > > other software or distribution wants to package my software and they use a > > different licence model. Will I have a similar problem there? Do you know? > > > > I will spend some time on the topic on the weekend... > > > > Rgds, > > > > Uwe > > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. März 2017 um 05:06 Uhr > > Von: "Andrew Grande" <apere...@gmail.com> > > An: users@nifi.apache.org > > Betreff: Re: Re: new Nifi Processors > > > > Basically the GPL license puts restrictions on how one can distribute in > > practical terms. Meaning your work may live under GPL license as long as > > it's not part of the official package. End users will have to download your > > NAR themselves. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 8:43 AM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Uwe, > >> > >> Sorry for misspeaking, by "official Apache NiFi repo" I meant the > >> Apache NiFi codebase (the "built-in" processors, e.g.). For the > >> licensing part, if you distribute something with GPL binary > >> dependencies, I believe the entire distribution must be licensed as > >> GPL or something GPL-compatible. This is not a bad thing, but due to > >> Apache licensing, such a processor could not be accepted as-is into > >> the NiFi codebase. Even LGPL binary dependencies are not allowed. > >> However as you have made your processor available via your own repo, > >> the community is free to download and use your processor under the > >> terms of your license. However if someone packaged up a NiFi > >> distribution with a GPL-licensed processor (for example), they would > >> not be allowed to distribute that package under an Apache 2.0 license; > >> rather I believe the whole package would have to be licensed under the > >> GPL. > >> > >> I am no licensing expert by any means, but I have had experience with > >> these kinds of things, both for NiFi and other extensible open-source > >> projects. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Matt > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Uwe Geercken <uwe.geerc...@web.de> wrote: > >> > Matt, > >> > > >> > I did not know there is an official Apache Nifi repo. If you send me a > >> > link, I will have a look. > >> > > >> > Also, is there an official way of tagging, annotating or otherwise > >> > documenting the license model for a processor? At which point in the > >> > code, > >> > documentation do I have to place license information? > >> > > >> > I will check if the Apache license fits to my personal ideas of how my > >> > software should be protected. I am not a license expert, so I will have > >> > to > >> > spend some time to understand what that means. Also I need to check what > >> > it > >> > means for the software (and current users) if I change the license model. > >> > > >> > Anyway, this is still a first version of the processors. So they will > >> > mature over time and I hope at that point the extension registry is > >> > there. > >> > > >> > In general - as you know Matt - I am creating open source software > >> > (since 2000). I believe in the idea of open source and of sharing for the > >> > benefit of all of us. > >> > > >> > If I can, I will adjust whatever is necessary, so that the license is > >> > not a hurdle for using the processors. Nifi is a really great product > >> > and I > >> > still remember my first impression when I saw it..... > >> > > >> > Greetings, > >> > > >> > Uwe > >> > > >> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 01. März 2017 um 03:56 Uhr > >> >> Von: "Matt Burgess" <mattyb...@apache.org> > >> >> An: users@nifi.apache.org > >> >> Betreff: Re: new Nifi Processors > >> >> > >> >> Uwe G has made his processors available (thank you!) via his own repo > >> >> vs the official Apache NiFi repo; this may be directly related to your > >> >> point about licensing. Having said that, he is of course at liberty > >> >> to license those separate processors as he sees fit (assuming it is > >> >> also in accordance with the licenses he has employed). Apache NiFi > >> >> welcomes to its codebase Apache-friendly contributions (FAQ [1]), but > >> >> alternatively and even before an Extension Registry [2] is supported, > >> >> authors can make their NiFi processors and such available under the > >> >> appropriate licenses. If there are commercial (or other) entities > >> >> looking to package such extensions with the official Apache NiFi > >> >> distribution, they would be subject to the same terms of the License & > >> >> Notice (L&N) of Apache NiFi as well as whatever extensions are added. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> Matt > >> >> > >> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > >> >> [2] > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Extension+Repositories+%28aka+Extension+Registry%29+for+Dynamically-loaded+Extensions > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Angry Duck Studio > >> >> <angryduckstu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Hi, Uwe, > >> >> > > >> >> > These look useful. However, typically custom processors are either > >> >> > Apache > >> >> > 2.0 or MIT licensed. These don't seem to specify a license, but your > >> >> > business rule engine (jare) seems to be GPL 3.0 licensed. I'm not > >> >> > sure that > >> >> > fits with most uses of NiFi. > >> >> > > >> >> > Can you please clarify? > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks > >> >> > > >> >> > -Matt > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Uwe Geercken <uwe.geerc...@web.de> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hello everyone, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I just wanted to let you know, that I have created four processors > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> Nifi > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1) GenerateData - generates random data (test data) based on word > >> >> >> lists, > >> >> >> regular expressions or purely random > >> >> >> 2) RuleEngine - a ruleengine which allows to process complex > >> >> >> business > >> >> >> logic. But the logic is maintained in a separate web app and thus > >> >> >> outside of > >> >> >> the flow. If the logic changes the flow does NOT have to change. > >> >> >> 3) SplitToAttribute - splits a single CSV row into flow file > >> >> >> attributes > >> >> >> 4) MergeTemplate - merges flow file attributes with an Apache > >> >> >> Velocity > >> >> >> template and writes the result to the flow file content > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please give them a try and let me know your findings and thoughts. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> https://github.com/uwegeercken/nifi_processors > >> >> >> > >> >> >> rgds, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Uwe > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >
