incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Hunspell dictionaries are not just words lists (+ other matters)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:14:29 GMT

On Nov 7, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing your experienced perspective to the list!
>> 
>> On Nov 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Olivier R. wrote:
>> 
>>> Le 07/11/2011 16:53, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Why would Apache care about that?
>>> 
>>> Maybe just because you are an Apache member and you make a strong statement on
an Apache list about FLOSS you are willing to bundle in your software.
>>> I’d prefer an official statement about this point, if you don’t mind.
>> 
>> Rob is not an Apache Member, neither am I. We are Apache Committers and on the Apache
OpenOffice.org (incubating) PPMC.
>> 
>> An official opinion is a reasonable request.
>> 
> 
> Whether a question is reasonable depends on the question.
> 
> Andrea was asking an Apache policy question.  Oliver was asking an
> abstract legal question.   I think we will receive a real answer to
> only one of these questions.

True, but these are facets of the same problem, how to incorporate language packs into AOOo
in a way that is compatible with each Language pack's license and copyright.

Andrea has been participating on ooo-dev long enough to know how to pose the question and
Olivier is experienced in OOo but new on this list.

I don't think it is helpful to throw abstract cabbages into the discussion. It might be silly,
but it doesn't help find an answer. 

You stated IBM has spelling dictionaries. How does this contribute to the discussion? Is IBM
willing to donate these cabbages via SGA to the ASF under the AL2?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> On the other thread Andrea Pescetti had an interesting point of view that I think
is the basis for seeking an opinion from the Apache Legal team (made up of Apache Members)
>> 
>> 
>> Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
>> 
>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> 
>>> On 05/11/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote:
>>>> 2011/11/5 Pedro Giffuni
>>>>> I have been looking at the situation of the dictionaries,
>>>>> and particular the italian dictionary.
>>>>> You are right that it will not be covered by the SGA.
>>> 
>> 
>> <big snip>
>> 
>>>> An AOOo without a native language GUI and linguistic tools would be just
>>>> useless outside the anglosaxon world and, indeed, a rather disastrous
>>>> presentation of the new project for people who don't speak English.
>>> 
>>> Sure, especially considering that the project description says that OpenOffice.org
supports 110 languages...
>>> 
>>> What I would recommend is:
>>> 
>>> 1) Recheck the Apache policy and find out the rationale behind it; I have nothing
to teach to the legal team, but this is a very rare case where the "virality" of GPL does
not apply.
>>> 
>>> 2) See if we can find a way to keep dictionaries as they are; note that no dictionary
is developed in the OOo trunk, they are synchronized from time to time, usually before a release;
the Italian dictionary SVN trunk, for example, is not in the OOo sources. Even just the possibility
to provide an extension that can be included in binary releases would be OK for me.
>>> 
>>> 3) If there is really no way to include a GPL extension this way, then we should
think about downloading the extension at installation time. But we managed to get Sun and
the FSF agree to ship dictionaries in the most convenient way (i.e., included in the installer),
so we might succeed this time as well.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Olivier
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message