www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: use of LICENSE and NOTICE
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:35:17 GMT
On 3/28/2012 2:37 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> Hi Larry
> 
> On 27.03.2012 19:31, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Oliver,
>>
>> Have you decided whether the LICENSE file or the NOTICE file (or neither)
>> will inform users and customers of Apache OpenOffice that, for the first
>> time, an Apache project will be distributing GPLv2 dictionaries?
>>
>> Not that I object to that in the least! It is simply that some companies
>> foolishly call GPLv2 a "Prohibited License" and may have contractual or
>> policy obligations to avoid it.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the hint.
> 
> This has not been decided yet.
> I will start a corresponding discussion at ooo-dev.
> 
> The decision that we want to bundle such dictionaries in our planned binary packages
is to
> satisfy the expectation of our users - it is convenient for a user to have these
> available, esp. for users who are mainly non-technicians.

There seems to be nothing to decide; the AL 2.0 and the GPL 3.0 are each
licenses.  They therefore fall under LICENSE.  Individual copyright notices
and various advertising clauses all fall under NOTICE.  Thankfully, the GPL
prohibits all sorts of additional conditions and advertising clauses, so the
net NOTICE should be rather straightforward.

Any artifact which does not contain GPL dictionaries must not contain the
GPL 3 license.  It really is all very simple.






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message