Hm, maybe I was wrong.  I don't see any mention of *GPL on KStem download page. 
 
I only see http://ciir.cs.umass.edu/downloads/agreements/general.html.

Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/



----- Original Message ----
> From: Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 11:35:32 PM
> Subject: Re: K-Stemmer for Solr 3.1
> 
> I see KStem being mentioned lately.  It's been 5+ years since I looked at  
> the 

> original KStem stuff, but I recall there being a license issue with the 
> *original* KStem.  I think it was under some flavour of GPL and that  was the 
> reason why we didn't include it in Lucene/Solr back then.  I  say this now 
> because I saw people said KStem was released under BSD license,  which 
> doesn't 

> match what I saw 5+ years ago.
> 
> Otis
> ----
> Sematext  :: http://sematext.com/ ::  Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message  ----
> > From: "Smiley, David W." <dsmi...@mitre.org>
> > To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"  <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
> >  Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 5:33:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: K-Stemmer for Solr  3.1
> > 
> > Lucid's KStemmer is LGPL and the Solr committers have shown  that they 
> > don't 

> >want  LGPL libraries shipping with Solr. If you are  intent on releasing 
> >your 

> >changes,  I suggest attaching both the  modified source and the compiled jar 
>onto 
>
> >Solr's  k-stemmer wiki  page; and of course say that it's LGPL licensed.
> > 
> > ~ David   Smiley
> > 
> > On May 16, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Bernd Fehling  wrote:
> > 
> > > I  don't know if it is allowed to modify Lucid  code and add it to jira.
> > > If  someone from Lucid would give me  the permission and the Solr 
>developers
> > >  have nothing against  it I won't mind adding the Lucid KStemmer to jira
> > >  for Solr  3.x and 4.x.
> > > 
> > > There are several Lucid KStemmer  users  which I can see from the many 
> >requests
> > > which I  got. Also the Lucid  KStemmer is faster than the standard 
>KStemmer.
> >  > 
> > > Bernd
> > > 
> > > Am 16.05.2011 06:33, schrieb  Bill Bell:
> > >> Did you upload the  code to Jira?
> >  >> 
> > >> On 5/13/11 12:28 AM, "Bernd  Fehling"<bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de>
> >  >>  wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> I backported a  Lucid KStemmer version from  solr 4.0 which I found
> > >>>  somewhere.
> > >>> Just changed  from
> > >>>  import org.apache.lucene.analysis.util.CharArraySet;   // solr4.0
> >  >>> to
> > >>> import   org.apache.lucene.analysis.CharArraySet;  // solr3.1
> > >>> 
> > >>> Bernd
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> >  >>> Am  12.05.2011 16:32, schrieb Mark:
> >  >>>>  java.lang.AbstractMethodError:
> >  >>>>   org.apache.lucene.analysis.TokenStream.incrementToken()Z
> >  >>>> 
> > >>>> Would you mind explaining your  modifications?  Thanks
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>  On 5/11/11 11:14 PM, Bernd  Fehling wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Am 12.05.2011  02:05, schrieb Mark:
> >  >>>>>> It appears that the older  version of the Lucid  Works KStemmer is
> > >>>>>> incompatible  with Solr  3.1. Has anyone been able to get this to  
>work?
> >  >>>>>> If not,
> > >>>>>> what are   you using as an alternative?
> > >>>>>> 
> >  >>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> 
> >  >>>>> Lucid KStemmer works nice with Solr3.1 after some  minor  mods to
> > >>>>> KStemFilter.java and   KStemFilterFactory.java.
> > >>>>> What problems do you   have?
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Bernd
> >  >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > >   *************************************************************
> > >  Bernd  Fehling                  Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld
> > > Dipl.-Inform. (FH)                           Universitätsstr.  25
> > > Tel. +49 521 106-4060                     Fax. +49 521 106-4052
> >  > bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de                  33615 Bielefeld
> > > 
> > > BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine -  www.base-search.net
> > >   *************************************************************
> > 
> >
>

Reply via email to