flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Squiggly dictionaries license
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:49:56 GMT
I looked again this morning.  Is there something I was supposed to get
from that?  I did not see anything that would make me think the current
text in flex-utilities/Squiggly/LICENSE is correct.  IMO, there are two

1) go against the folks who prefer short licenses and include the entire
Hunspell README in the LICENSE.
2) Use a simple pointer without copyright or excerpt from the README as
described in the how-to such as:

This product bundles SCOWL and Friends dictionaries, which are available
under a
"BSD/MIT-like" license.  For details, see
dictionaries/en_US/README_en_US.txt or dictionaries/en_GB/README_en_GB.txt.

Either one is fine with me. Open Office definitely leads the way in long
licenses.  I think what we have right now is at best misleading as one
could be fooled into thinking the excerpt is the complete license.  I know
you have additional text above saying to look for more details, but I
don't understand why we wouldn't want to use the template.  Every time we
try to create our own wording we run the risk of doing it wrong, and the
response on legal-discuss did not say the current text is correct.


On 9/24/14 7:58 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Did you actually look at the links/reachearch or what currently in Git?
>In particular look at the aggregated files from Open Office.
>Does what we currently have meet the minimum legal requirements? And if
>it doesn't exactly what requirement are we not meeting?

View raw message