Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Reply-To: <orcmid@apache.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orcmid@apache.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>,
	<pfg@apache.org>
References: <8A5F4CAB-FDBE-4C29-96B4-27A67B6503AD@gmx.net>
 <1322163990.42596.YahooMailClassic@web113517.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1322163990.42596.YahooMailClassic@web113517.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:27:05 -0800
Message-ID: <003d01ccaae7$6f129d80$4d37d880$@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQDM8YyiOZ6lL8dzQeQasNYI5m+XSJe756KQ
Content-Language: en-us

Simple point: Something is category B because someone with the authority =
to do so put a category B license on it.  It doesn't matter what it is =
or how wrong-headed they were to do that.

More complicated: It is important to understand the principle behind how =
category B material is handled the way it is in binaries.  It is about =
not having users commit errors with regard to the licensing of some =
material and making it difficult to innocently violate the applicable =
license.  See < http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b> and =
note that it never suggests that source code (whatever that means in a =
given case) is ever in the SVN nor in the source of a release - the =
inclusion is only in binary form within the product, with suitable =
labeling, etc.  (There is an exception for certain kinds of *small* =
source, and "source" consumed at runtime.  I'd be very careful before =
assuming being discussed here qualifies for that exception is being =
discussed here.  I'm with Pedro on the prudence side.)

That FAQ is discussed with some regularity, and if it is not clear =
enough, questions to legal are appropriate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]=20
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)

Hi Mathias;

--- On Thu, 11/24/11, Mathias Bauer <mathias_bauer@gmx.net> wrote:

> >=20
> > You mean like just tar them all and put them with the
> binary
> > release?
>=20
> Yes. Even packaging as extension and deploying these
> packages as part of a binary release does not look
> fundamentally different than bundling a library.
>=20

I think this is a perfectly viable solution.

The only issue is what type of maintenance are
we planning to do on this. I had suggested
Apache Extras as a point of encounter for
contributors as we can't maintain this directly,
but perhaps this is something that doesn't get
updated very much or perhaps the real maintainers
can handle this on their own (as extensions).

Pedro.


> Regards,
> Mathias
>=20
> >>=20
>=20