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: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of GPL'd modules
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:06:30 GMT
On 30.11.2011 14:56, O.Felka wrote:
> Am 30.11.2011 11:16, schrieb Gianluca Turconi:
>> This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd
>> dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final
>> consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the
>> removal of GPL'd modules.
>>
>> The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower
>> to implement them ;-) are:
>>
>> a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be
>> detected) automatically from the extension repository during
>> installation;
>>
>> b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among
>> other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that
>> can be installed and what its license is;
>>
>> c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools
>> pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is
>> downloaded.
>>
>> d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools
>> as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL.
>>
>> Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course.
>>
>> IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one.
>>
>> In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gianluca
>
>  From a user point of view we can't only deliver an Office without
> solution d). Coming along with an Office without a "out of the box"
> spell checking is unprofessional.
>
> Solution a) is not good because opening an internet connection at
> installation time without telling what's going on looks pretty insecure.

That is true, but we do not have to do it silently.  We can not do it 
automatically anyway, because we need the user's consent for the 
non-Apache license.

>
> With b) I as a user would notice this as "nice to know" as I expect this
> to work out of the box and close the nag screen. And as a user I'm not
> interested in license stuff.
>
> The same for c): Why should the user care because this should work out
> of the box.

Yes, it should work out of the box.  But how to do that is the big 
question.  We are trying to come up with an answer that is acceptable 
for Apache and does not annoy the user too much.

-Andre

>
> Regards,
> Olaf

Mime
View raw message