www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LICENSE, NOTICE and bundling Hunspell Diciionaries
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:20:22 GMT
Looks OK to me.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>  Sorry to bother you again, but the RM for this package is asserting that
> the current LICENSE text is valid.  Can someone please approve the
> following LICENSE text?  I am unclear as to whether:
>    1. it is ok to mention the Copyright given the "how-to" templates do
>    not.
> The copyright is part of the license. That's not a problem.

>    1. It is ok to include the last paragraph given that is only the
>    "top-level" section of the README_xx.txt we are pointing to.  My
>    understanding was it should be all of the licensing text in the those files
>    or none at all.
> I took a quick look at the readme. IIUC, you have a question on what the
dictionary's license is. The collective work or the collective
work+individual pieces. I'd choose the latter (collective work+individual
licenses). Other opinions may vary.

> Here is a link to the contents of the README files (there is a section
> called "Copyright, Sources, Credits"):
> http://wordlist.aspell.net/hunspell-readme/
>  The current LICENSE text for the bundling reads:
>  ------
>    This product bundles the SCOWL (and friends) Hunspell dictionaries
>    licensed under a BSD / MIT like license and are Copyright 2000-2014
>    by Kevin Atkinson.
>    For complete details of the LICENSE please see:
>       dictionaries/en_US/README_en_US.txt
>       dictionaries/en_GB/README_en_GB.txt
>    Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson
>    Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
>   lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
>   and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
>   provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
>   that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
>   supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
>   about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
>   "as is" without express or implied warranty.
> ----------
>  Thanks,
> -Alex
>   From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:54 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: LICENSE, NOTICE and bundling Hunspell Diciionaries
>    On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, no takers?
>> Let me try to simplify the questions:
>> 1) The "how to" says you can include a "short" license in LICENSE.
>  The howto says that it is "best reserved for short licenses". That
> doesn't exclude "long" licenses.
>> In a
>> collective license like in [1] is that a "short" license because there is
>> a short paragraph for the collection, or is this a long license because a
>> collective license is the entire thing including the "sub"-licenses?
>  I don't think there's a subjective metric for "short" or "long". IMO,
> it's probably referring to the length of the license, not the presence or
> absence of sub-licenses, paragraphs, etc.
>> 2) If the answer to #1 is "long", then is a text file containing the
>> entire license co-located with the bundled dictionary considered
>> "supporting documentation" or is the NOTICE file for the bundling Flex
>> product the "supporting documentation"?
>  Don't use the NOTICE, unless you have to (i.e. a LICENSE requires it).
> In this case, nothing is required to go in the NOTICE file. So, don't do it.
>  Personally, I like to see the entire licenses in LICENSE files, not
> pointers to licenses. The length of the license is not an issue.
>  --kevan

View raw message