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 04:55:48 GMT
Well... that's not what I intended. You can package things in whatever sets
make sense for the user. If you want just a spell-checker package, then
that is fine. You just can't produce something that requires Category X
(whether build or run time). If the user *choose* to add that to the
installation, then fine. If a downstream packager chooses to bundle, then
fine. But the original packages from the ASF cannot have such a dependency.

Justin: to answer your question: I would expect the English spell-checker
to be available under ASF/permissive licensing. The primary language of the
product community is English, and so I would expect that to be available.
If not... then it doesn't seem like a permissively-licensed project.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>  There seems to be conflicting answers.  Henri's response seemed to
> indicate that we can go forward with a package that only contains the
> spell-checker if we don't bundle or download the Category X files and just
> point folks to them, but Greg's answer seems to indicate that we cannot and
> should instead bundle the spell-checker source with a larger package the
> the main Flex SDK.
>  Can we get clarification please?
>  Thanks,
> -Alex
>   From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:24 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Hunspell Dictionary Usage
>    On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mclean <
> justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In this case also:
>> 1. This is a runtime dependancy not a compile time one
>> 2. The dependancy is on the dictionary data format not on Hunspell code
>> itself
>> 3. Some dictionaries exist that are not GPL/LGPL but we were unable to
>> find an English one
>  A runtime dependency upon (L)GPL'd data is just as onerous as
> compile-time/code dependency.
>  If I cannot run Apache Flex without acquiring that (L)GPL data, then it
> violates the guidelines. The end result must be "nothing more restrictive
> than the Apache license".
>  As Alex notes, making it an optional feature is a great and perfectly
> acceptable solution. You'll see similar approaches across the entire ASF.
>  Cheers,
> -g

View raw message