incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject Re: Hunspell and MPL license
Date Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:22:53 GMT

 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 <ooo@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was digging a bit into 3rd party licenses for the Hunspell issue 
> and
> came across Category B: Reciprocal Licenses in
> http://apache.org/legal/3party.html 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


Mime
View raw message