On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Matthias Epheser < matthias.ephe...@indoqa.com> 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? > I'm no legal expert but I guess a move to GPL means that Solr won't be able to distribute it ever (unless it is dual-licensed into ASL as well). This is off-topic but I'm curious as to how Drupal is using SolrJS. Are they exposing their Solr servers to the public so that it can be accessed directly through Javascript? That would be a bad idea. -- Regards, Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
