> > Before we start here's a little background on the hyphenation stuff: > > Our hyphenation file are XML files that are derived from TeX hyphenation
Under what license where the original TeX files ? > > 2. If the former (of [1]) is true, we need a grant from the copyright > > holder of the original file, right? What if the original file is unclear This depends on what the license was you got it under. If there is no (explicit) license; you'll have to indeed get permission of the authors as the default generally is 'No' (depending on age of the file and country). > > 3. (Question is somewhat general) What's the threshold for the necessity > > of a grant? Does a non-committer have to submit a grant on a single new > > file? If code written by someone else under a non-apache license is imported; it will need to a grant to become part of the apache proper (as to allow us to remove the original and cut-and-paste the asf license into it). OR it needs to be labeled as NOT apache; and have the right license next to it. See for example in cvs apache-1.3/src/regex apache-1.3/src/regex/COPYRIGHT Also note that it is in its own directory. > > 4. Some of the hyphenation pattern files are licensed under the LPPL > > (LaTeX project public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). > > We'd like to have clearance to use, modify and distribute files under > > this license in the FOP project. Ack - will post on that in a moment. > > 5. Can we modify and relicense under the ASL hyphenation pattern files > > clearly stated as being in the public domain without having a grant but Propably - but depending on what country that('this is public domain') was 'stated' in and at what day; as the Berne convention was not signed by all countries at the same time. (The Berne convention effectively killed the concept of 'Public Domain' or -non- copyrighted material in most countries - and makes the statement 'this is public domain' somethings ineffective if not backed up by a license, grant and/or copyright.). > > 6. We can't use files containing a restriction like "Can be used freely > > for non-commercial purposes.", except if we can positively identify the > > copyright holder and get a grant, right? Correct - as that would mean that you can download something from apache.org which has _MORE_ restrictive elements in it than the ASF license. Anything we include under 3rd party licenses should be as restrictive or -less- restrictive than our own license. So that when you download something from *.apache.org it can always be used in with the ASF level of freedom; and perhaps some bits may give you even -more- leeway. Never less. Dw --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]