incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Javier Sola <>
Subject ICU (was Hunspell and MPL license)
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:27:03 GMT
If I remember correctly and unless it has changed, some patches were 
applied to ICU during the build. This required a specific version of ICU 
to which the patches were applied, and this is why the ICU source was 
kept inside the OOo source (I believe).


Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello Eike;
> I think you are right. I should mention that on FreeBSD, LibreO uses 
> the preinstalled hunspell package so using the upstream version is 
> possible already. Furthermore, we should use the same approach for ICU 
> and other dependencies: if the system already has such packages, why 
> not use them?
>  I guess there may be problems for specific platforms like Windows, so 
> there's where the binary and NOTICE files kich in.
> Cheers,
> Pedro.
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:41:46 +0200, Eike Rathke <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was digging a bit into 3rd party licenses for the Hunspell issue and
>> came across Category B: Reciprocal Licenses in
>> and noted that Hunspell is
>> tri-licensed also under MPL 1.1 that would be permissive as long as the
>> code is distributed only in binary form and the NOTICE file labels its
>> reciprocity, if I understood correctly.
>> Currently OOo needs Hunspell in source code form only because very few
>> patches are applied to be able to build it on Solaris, Windows and
>> MingW, and one patch against a stack smasher. Am I right in assuming
>> that if Hunspell adapted the upstream version such that these patches
>> were superfluous, then AOOo would be able to build against a system
>> Hunspell or on systems where Hunspell is not available or for binary
>> distributions a build could include a binary of the library if the
>> proper NOTICE entry is provided? To me this sounds like a solution to
>> the problem.
>>   Eike

View raw message