incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re:
Date Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:31:24 GMT
On 25/11/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> Il 24/11/2011 23.53, Mathias Bauer ha scritto:
>> It seems that you don't get the point. I just wanted to mention that the
>> dictionary files we have in svn can be seen as and*end product* and so
>> probably(!) are comparable more with a binary file than with a source
>> file.

Very smart. Indeed, dictionaries can be considered to be both in 
"source" and "binary" form, and this could be used conveniently for 
those dictionaries (not all, but some) that can be distributed in 
"binary" form only per the current Apache policy.

> I think this was the main reason why Andrea Pescetti quoted the FSE
> answer about "mere aggregation" of GPLed dictionary.

One of the reasons indeed, but not the main reason. The main reason for 
it was that, unlike what would happen when using a GPL library (i.e., 
that the "virality" of GPL would mean that the GPL applied to the 
program as a whole), using a GPL dictionary won't impact on the copyleft 
status of the other code.

This is possible since the office suite is totally independent from the 
dictionary; packaging both (LGPL, but would work with 
Apache License too) and the Italian dictionary (GPL) in the same 
installer file is just a matter convenience; and the installer can 
install both, just like any installer for a Linux-based system would 
install many programs stored on the same physical DVD and having 
mutually incompatible licenses. and the Italian 
dictionary are "merely aggregated" in the same package, like Apache 
httpd and the GIMP are "merely aggregated" on an installation DVD. This 
took some years, but was eventually clarified for good.


View raw message