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 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:52:04 GMT
Hi Greg,

Thanks for all of your answers.  It wasn't clear from legal-resolved that licenses that were
"like" some Category A license were acceptable.

I have one more question:  we have a release candidate that is pretty much ready to go.  The
current README [1] instructs folks to get their dictionaries with the following text:

You can obtain dictionary files from:

In light of your request that the Spell Checker's English version be full covered under permissive
licenses, I'm wondering if the README is ok as is.  The two links point to places where you
are likely to get a mixed bag of dictionaries, some with LGPL licenses.  Seems like we should
start with the 'recipe' for an all-permissive english config with something like this:

    You can obtain en_US and en_CA dictionaries under a BSD/MIT-like
license from:

    You can obtain other dictionary files from:


    But note that many of these dictionaries are under LPGL licenses.

But the question for you is:  must we roll another RC to make it more clear that there is
an all-permissive recipe or can we change the README in the next release?

Thanks in advance,

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/squiggly/1.0/rc1/README

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: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:20 AM
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 Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com<mailto:aharui@adobe.com>>
Sorry to complicate this thread more, but I went to the link Justin posted.  There is another
page on their site that Henri pointed out which is [2]
There it says the license is "BSD/MIT-like".  Is that good enough for the ASF?

Yes. And see Justin's response else-thread.

For reference, the "BSD/MIT-like" is because of the aggregation of licenses, found here:


View raw message