question Streamline PMML Evaluator in Archives of Support Questions (Read Only)

Streamline PMML Evaluator

ekbrosch — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 01:35:17 GMT

I'm trying to determine which PMML evaluator Streamline uses to back the PMML component. Given the conversation listed below, Apache-compatible PMML evaluators are hard to come by.

https://community.hortonworks.com/questions/3020/anyone-know-of-a-java-pmml-evaluator-with-an-apach.html

Re: Streamline PMML Evaluator

gvetticaden1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:28:24 GMT

Hi @Eric Brosch

SAM (formerly known as StreamLine) uses Storm PMML Bolt Storm integration (https://github.com/apache/storm/tree/d5acec9e3b9473a0e8cf39c7e12393626a3ca426/external/storm-pmml) which uses JPMML evaluator (https://github.com/jpmml/jpmml)

@Sriharsha Chintalapani

Re: Streamline PMML Evaluator

gvetticaden1 — Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:00:47 GMT

One other tip. If you want to see what jars/classes are being used for each of the processors in SAM. Select Settings --> Component Definition

Select Edit under Actions for the processor you are interested in.

You will then see the details of the processor...

Re: Streamline PMML Evaluator

ekbrosch — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:07:14 GMT

Thanks for the info, @George Vetticaden. How do you get around the AGPL license on JPMML? Are you limited to only using the older version which is under BSD?

Re: Streamline PMML Evaluator

schintalapani — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:19:54 GMT

@Eric Brosch With AGPL we are not allowed to package the JPMML dependency along with our ASLv2 Licensed Storm or SAM (Streamline). We build this as a compile time dependency and when users deploy the topology we fetch JPMML artifacts from maven central repo during the deployment. Its users who are in control which version of JPMML artifact they would like to use and there are older versions which are compatible with AGPL license.

Re: Streamline PMML Evaluator

vromeo — Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:00:28 GMT

Looks like openscoring also offers jpmml under a BSD license for a fee, see below.

Unfortunately, it appears there's a gray area between "we just want to use the software" and "want to redistribute proprietary software based on this code." The wording of the attached blurb from openscoring suggests they think "use" of AGPL code is fine, even though the FSF stance seems to be that GNU AGPL is only compatible w/ GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html