incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer ...@a-w-f.de>
Subject Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:42:33 GMT
On 27.11.2011 22:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Andre Fischer<af@a-w-f.de>  wrote:
>> Hi Rob, all,
>>
>> On 24.11.2011 18:50, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Pedro Giffuni<pfg@apache.org>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ariel;
>>>>
>>>> If the comment on the Wiki has been approved by Apache
>>>> legal and not just an interpretation you guys are right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Weak copy left (category-b) like MPL may be included in our binary
>>> releases but not our source releases.   We can also automate
>>> downloading the source for these modules as a non default build
>>> option.
>>>
>>> We are not required to move MPL code from SVN.  But we should be
>>> removing GPL code since we cannot distribute that in source or binary
>>> releases.
>>
>> I would like to clarify what it means that MPL code is part of the SVN
>> repository.  At the moment, most category-b and -x code is provided in one
>> of several archives that are downloaded during the configure process from
>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries.  That means that up to now these
>> archives have not been part of the SVN repository.  The dictionaries are one
>> exception to this.  They are located in the main/dictionaries directory.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>> The http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries server is not expected to
>> live for much longer so we need a new home for these archives.  We are in
>> the process (almost finished) to remove the category-x code.  For the
>> remaining category-b code the SVN repository would be a convenient place,
>> but every other server would do as well (from a technical standpoint).
>>
>
> Right.  But since we don't have an http or ftp server that is not
> backed by SVN, the logical place is our SVN.
>
> And honestly I don't think we really have a choice here.  Remember,
> we're modifying/patching MPL code.  That means our modifications must
> be made available under MPL.  And clause 3.2 of the MPL requires that
> we make these patches available electronically for at least 12 months.
>    We need to be serious about this obligation, and tossing code off to
> an external site, like Apache Extras does not sound very serious.  We
> have the obligation to make our changes available. This is our
> obligation, not Google's
> .

I was just trying to point out that
a) MPL code is not intermingled with the rest of our code but clearly 
separated and that
b) the tar balls are/will be stored on SVN servers for technical 
reasons, not because we want it to be.

> As discussed previously we really need to start pushing our patches
> upstream.  But we know there is no guarantee that the patches will be
> accepted or integrated in a timely fashion.  So the approach of
> patching MPL code does not appear to being going away quickly.  But we
> do need to monitor this and make sure that we don't cross over the
> threshold into actively developing MPL code at Apache.

I agree.

-Andre

>
>> That means that there already is a clear distinction between category-a and
>> category-b code.  This distinction makes it easier to make a source release
>> by basically just putting the main/ and extras/ trees into an archive.  No
>> sorting out the category-b code is necessary.
>>
>
> Right.  And by storing source tarballs and patches we actively
> discourage and make it more difficult to modify.  This, plus
> segregating them by tree discourages intermingling.  And we also
> satisfy our MPL obligations.  Short of not using these components at
> all, I don't see a better way of handling this.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I tend to be pretty strict in this type of issues so
>>>> please excuse me for scaring you all ;-).
>>>>
>>>> Pedro.
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 11/24/11, Ariel Constenla-Haile<arielch@apache.org>   
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 06:29:42AM
>>>>> -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunspell is still the main spellchecker in AOO but we
>>>>>> cannot ship the italian dictionary and even the MPL
>>>>>> dictionaries have to be removed from the repository.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly, what do you mean by saying "You can go
>>>>>
>>>>> ahead and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kill hunspell from the tree"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are not allowed to ship copyleft (strong or weak)
>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> source releases so the same rules about not
>>>>>
>>>>> download+patching
>>>>>>
>>>>>> copyleft apply to hunspell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless I misunderstood something?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/ipclearance.html
>>>>> Task 1: Clarify legal usage of Category B (eg MPL)
>>>>> libraries
>>>>>
>>>>> Binary builds of libraries can be shipped with binary
>>>>> release of AOO.
>>>>> Source code of libraries can remain on an Apache server but
>>>>> (like
>>>>> ext_sources of old OOo.)
>>>>> BUT
>>>>> *  source code of libraries is not shipped in a source
>>>>> release of AOO
>>>>> *  instead it can be downloaded and built during
>>>>> bootstrap, but only when
>>>>>     developer uses a configure option that is
>>>>> off by default
>>>>>
>>>>> [end of quote]
>>>>>
>>>>> that's why rev. 1204995
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1204995
>>>>> introduces:
>>>>> --enable-hunspell - off by default
>>>>> --enable-hyphen   - off by default
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Category B sources are not included
>>>>> * Using system/building Category B libraries is off by
>>>>> default
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>>>>> La Plata, Argentina
>>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message