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 05:26:22 GMT
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.  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"?
 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 we can't have a spell-checker-only "product", then if the term "packaging" means how we
organize files in a "product", 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?

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.

Sorry for all the questions, and thank in advance,
-Alex

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: Sunday, August 31, 2014 9:55 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

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.

Cheers,
-g


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



Mime
View raw message