On 6/6/12 10:33 AM, "Peter Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The BSD license is a problem for our clients, whereas the Apache 2
>license is not. Go figure. That's the situation!
ASL 2.0 is a derivative of the BSD license, after all...
Apache projects regularly depend on other items that are MIT or BSD
licensed since these are the least restrictive open source licenses around.
>So what is the answer for us when we don't want to ship the avro tools
>JAR but need the Paranamer classes from it. What can we do to stay
>consistent with Apache 2 e.g. create my own Paranamer JAR containing
>just those classes from the tools JAR?
As Doug said, packaging doesn't affect anything license-wise, but you can
repackage things fairly easily into a single jar that contains what you
need using maven-shade-plugin.
The avro-tools.jar uses this to repackage all dependencies inside of it.
You can do the same thing for the base avro.jar and explicitly include
only the few jars you need (or exclude those you do not) by adding a
maven-shade-plugin configuration to lang/java/avro/pom.xml
>On 06/06/2012 18:30, Doug Cutting wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 06:51 AM, Peter Cameron wrote:
>>> I've only just discovered the dependancy of Avro upon the thoughtworks
>>> Paranamer classes. We use reflection at runtime with a schema and
>>> encountered the usual ClassNotFoundException for Paranamer after I'd
>>> been rationalising our codebase -- which included the removal of the
>>> avro-tools-1.6.3 JAR. The tools JAR contains the Paranamer classes
>>> I was unaware of. We operate in a very lightweight environment so the
>>> 10Mb tools JAR is not suitable for us to deploy.
>>> I went looking for the Paranamer JAR and eventually found version 2.5.
>>> However, this is BSD licensed. BSD is not suitable for us. Only
>>> Apache 2.0.
>> How is BSD a problem? BSD is less restrictive an Apache 2.0 and is
>> thus is generally not considered to alter the requirements of one
>> re-distributing software that includes BSD within an Apache-licensed