www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Hunspell Dictionary Usage
Date Mon, 01 Sep 2014 04:31:31 GMT

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?


From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com<mailto:gstein@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:24 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Hunspell Dictionary Usage

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com<mailto:justin@classsoftware.com>>

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.


View raw message