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
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
>> >
>> >
>>
