www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hunspell Dictionary Usage
Date Sun, 31 Aug 2014 04:57:01 GMT
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
>...

> > As Alex notes, making it an optional feature is a great and perfectly
> acceptable solution. You'll see similar approaches across the entire ASF.
>
To make it an optional feature we would still need to release it as a
> separate package correct? This is so that the FLEX installer can optionally
> download that and add to the SDK or someone can optionally add it manually.
> Would it be enough for the README to clearly state that this is an optional
> feature of the Apache Flex SDK?
>

I don't know what you're thinking when you say "separate package" ... I'll
try to walk thru a few scenarios:

* downstream packagers *must* be able to create a Flex distribution without
the (L)GPL components. not even an installation query.

* other packagers may want to take the original Apache Flex distro, add the
(L)GPL components, and create their own distribution (which has
encrumbrances beyond our ALv2)

* any *binaries* distributed by the ASF should not include, nor require,
the (L)GPL components. if such binary is an installer, then it *may*
provide an option to perform an *additional* download for the (L)GPL
feature. I would imagine the installer is gonna show the user the ALv2
terms; the optional feature would likely need to show the additional (L)GPL
terms

* the README in the source distribution would clearly note the source is
under ALv2. and with certain switches and extra downloads, that (L)GPL
dependencies can be included into the build

... something like that. Hope that helps.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message