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 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 07:01:04 GMT
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>  Hi Greg,
>  I'm still confused.  It may have to do with the term "package".
>  Apache Flex has several "products".  On dist.a.o, there is the SDK, an
> installer, a next-generation compiler, a next-generation SDK, an a
> component explorer.  Each is voted on separately and released at different
> times of the year.  We are now thinking of adding another "product" which
> is a Spell Checker.

All fine. This is normal.

>  Practically speaking, just about everyone downloading a Spell Checker
> product is going to end up using a Category X dictionary.  Is it a true
> technical "requirement"?

You can't use a technicality to get around this. If the Spell Checker is
useless without a Category X component, then you have a problem. I would
suggest your rule of thumb here is "must have an English version available
under Apache/permissive; other languages may have further restrictions the
user will need to deal with".

>  No, because someone can use some custom dictionary.  Given that, Is it ok
> for Apache Flex to release such a "product"?  Can we say that, since Apache
> Flex has more than one product, the Spell Checker product is "optional" and
> therefore it is ok to release it by itself?  Most folks come to Apache Flex
> for the SDKs, not the spell checker.

If the Spell Checker is released independently, then it must conform to the
licensing rules.

>  If we can't have a spell-checker-only "product", then if the term
> "packaging" means how we organize files in a "product",

Random terms. We're talking about your release artifacts.

> I do have some questions about that too.  Can a release have more than one
> source zip/tar file?  If so, does each zip/tar need its own LICENSE/NOTICE?
>  Can it be voted on separately?

A release should be a single zip/tar, with a single LICENSE/NOTICE in it,
with a vote upon *that* zip/tar. This is why we digitally sign the zip/tar
to indicate that the *specific* zip/tar has been verified for release.

>  Also, if the spell-checker must be an optional part of another
> "product", can we just add the spell-checker source to the single source
> zip/tar in the SDK release?  I think it meets the criteria.  No Category X
> dictionaries are bundled or auto-downloaded.  Folks opt-in when they go and
> get their dictionaries.  Maybe we'll have our installer offer to fetch the
> dictionary or two after the user acknowledges that they understand the
> dictionary is under a different license.  Users of the SDK don't need to
> get dictionaries unless they are using the spell checker.  The majority of
> SDK users probably aren't using spell checkers.

You could certainly have the entire spell checker *feature* as an option in
one of your other release artifacts. The user acquires an appropriate
dictionary or three, and then enables that option during build/install.

Remember: the goal is "can I download something off the ASF servers, and
have it be useful under the ALv2 license?". If it cannot be useful, then it
cannot be an ASF release.


View raw message