incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re:
Date Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:12:02 GMT
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Andre Fischer <> wrote:
> Hi Rob, all,
> On 24.11.2011 18:50, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Pedro Giffuni<>  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
>  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.


> The 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
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.

> 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.


> 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<>  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?
>>>> 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
>>>> 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

View raw message