incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:05:58 GMT
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:27 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:

> Simple point: Something is category B because someone with the authority to do so put
a category B license on it.  It doesn't matter what it is or how wrong-headed they were to
do that.
>
> More complicated: It is important to understand the principle behind how category B material
is handled the way it is in binaries.  It is about not having users commit errors with regard
to the licensing of some material and making it difficult to innocently violate the applicable
license.  See < http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b> and note that it never
suggests that source code (whatever that means in a given case) is ever in

That page also never says that we are allowed to have category-a code
in SVN. It is easy to go astray by trying to interpret what is not
said.

In fact that page hardly discusses SVN at all. That is why we
discussed and resolved this point several weeks ago.


> the SVN nor in the source of a release - the inclusion is only in binary form within
the product, with suitable labeling, etc.  (There is an exception for certain kinds of *small*
source, and "source" consumed at runtime.

Irrelevant, since no one is discussing including this in the source release.

Maybe some are making an unstated and unwarranted assumption that our
source release will contain 100% of what is in SVN?  That would
explain much of the confusion I am hearing.

> I'd be very careful before assuming being discussed here qualifies for that exception
is being discussed here.  I'm with Pedro on the prudence side.)
>

These questions were already raised, discussed and resolved many weeks ago.


> That FAQ is discussed with some regularity, and if it is not clear enough, questions
to legal are appropriate.
>

Anyone who has questions is encouraged to raise them.   Those with
answers are encourged to provide them.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:47
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
>
> Hi Mathias;
>
> --- On Thu, 11/24/11, Mathias Bauer <mathias_bauer@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You mean like just tar them all and put them with the
>> binary
>>> release?
>>
>> Yes. Even packaging as extension and deploying these
>> packages as part of a binary release does not look
>> fundamentally different than bundling a library.
>>
>
> I think this is a perfectly viable solution.
>
> The only issue is what type of maintenance are
> we planning to do on this. I had suggested
> Apache Extras as a point of encounter for
> contributors as we can't maintain this directly,
> but perhaps this is something that doesn't get
> updated very much or perhaps the real maintainers
> can handle this on their own (as extensions).
>
> Pedro.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Mathias
>>
>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message