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: LICENSE, NOTICE and bundling Hunspell Diciionaries
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:42:22 GMT
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.
  2.  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.

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<mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:54 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto: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<mailto: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

Mime
View raw message