--- On Sun, 11/6/11, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: ... > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > +1 I heartily agree with Dave's suggestion. > > > > The issue has been made very clear by Andrea and I > think it would be good to raise an issue on the LEGAL JIRA. > (Registration required, but I don't think committer status > is needed.) Also, legal-discuss@ apache.org is an useful > place, but my experience is that eventually a LEGAL JIRA > issue will obtain more consistent attention. > > > > Just make sure that you explain what a spell checking > dictionary is. > Otherwise any legal types will be confused. This is > not a dictionary like Webster's, with words and definitions, > where the definitions are creative content. A spell checking > dictionary is more of a word list.
Makefiles are also a basically a list with little or no creative content and they don't even leave a trace in the code but we are relicensing them. I am concerned that we are talking about the GPL. If it were MPL or a documentation license it would be different but last time we discussed it we were not accepting copyleft documentation either. cheers, Pedro. > I'm not sure what the creative expression is in a > list of all common > words in a language and how that could be > copyrighted. Of course, I > am not a lawyer. But this case seems relevant: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural > > > I also think Pedro raises an important concern. My > sense of other materials I have seen about that is binaries > (or at least not human-readable and editable) might work > since it is possible to make it clear that a non-Apache > license applies and there is no confusion by having source > anywhere in a release for something with an unacceptable > license. I don't know how this applies to the present > case. I suspect it has some bearing on how safe inclusion > of various dictionaries in binary distributions is seen to > be. > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] > > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:57 > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: > ftp.services.openoffice.org?) > > > > HI Andrea, > > > > This looks like some good questions for Apache Legal. > You should send this to legal-discuss@a.o. > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > >> On 05/11/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote: > >>> 2011/11/5 Pedro Giffuni > >>>> I have been looking at the situation of > the dictionaries, > >>>> and particular the italian dictionary. > >>>> You are right that it will not be covered > by the SGA. > >> > >> Sure, and to be more precise there are no portions > of which Oracle has the copyright in the Italian dictionary. > And we are discussing about three completeley separate tools > (this is true of all languages): a dictionary (used for > spell-checking), a thesaurus (for synonyms) and hyphenations > patterns. Each has its own licence and copyright holders; in > most cases, hyphenation patterns come from the LaTeX > project. > >> > >>>> Perhaps more worrying is that the italian > dictionary is > >>>> the only dictionary under the GPL; most > others are triple > >>>> licensed (LGPL/MPL/GPL). > >>>> We are not allowed to use it, so it will > be removed > >>>> from the SVN server for sure. > >> > >> The fundamental thing to consider here is that > dictionaries cannot be considered like libraries, for the > following reasons: > >> - OpenOffice.org dictionaries are not code; their > binary form is coincident with their source form. > >> - OpenOffice.org dictionaries are not a > dependency: they are pluggable data files, and they are > packaged (all of them, even in the installer for native > builds) as extensions to remark that there is no dependency > whatsoever on them. > >> - OpenOffice.org dictionaries fall in the "mere > aggregation" provision in the GPL license; even though it is > customary to distribute a package containing, say, the > Italian version of OpenOffice.org and the Italian > dictionary, it is considered the same as distributing an > Ubuntu ISO file, containing software with different licenses > aggregated together. > >> > >> The existing Apache policy probably assumes that > we are talking about code and that the (L)GPL libraries > constitute a dependency, and it was probably built by > examining what the implications of (L)GPL components would > have been in that case. But this is a much different > situation. > >> > >>>> I am not a lawyer and I don't have any > idea how the > >>>> GPL could be enforced in this case, but > things are not nice. > >> > >> I can't understand these worries about enforcing > the GPL. We even got an answer from the Free Software > Foundation that said it is absolutely OK to include GPL > dictionaries into OpenOffice.org, since it is "mere > aggregation"; see the (long) story in > >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=65039 > >> > >>> We've discussed a lot about this issue, but > there isn't any consensus yet > >>> about *how *to solve the problem, in a > pragmatic way that doesn't include a > >>> license change. > >> > >> Gianluca is right, in our situation we won't be > able to change the license of the dictionary and thesaurus > (at least, not to Apache License); we might get the > hyphenation patterns released under the Apache License, but > since virtually all of them are taken from the LaTeX project > it's probably better that the legal team checks whether it's > fine to import from the LaTeX project with the existing > license. > >> > >>> An AOOo without a native language GUI and > linguistic tools would be just > >>> useless outside the anglosaxon world and, > indeed, a rather disastrous > >>> presentation of the new project for people who > don't speak English. > >> > >> Sure, especially considering that the project > description says that OpenOffice.org supports 110 > languages... > >> > >> What I would recommend is: > >> > >> 1) Recheck the Apache policy and find out the > rationale behind it; I have nothing to teach to the legal > team, but this is a very rare case where the "virality" of > GPL does not apply. > >> > >> 2) See if we can find a way to keep dictionaries > as they are; note that no dictionary is developed in the OOo > trunk, they are synchronized from time to time, usually > before a release; the Italian dictionary SVN trunk, for > example, is not in the OOo sources. Even just the > possibility to provide an extension that can be included in > binary releases would be OK for me. > >> > >> 3) If there is really no way to include a GPL > extension this way, then we should think about downloading > the extension at installation time. But we managed to get > Sun and the FSF agree to ship dictionaries in the most > convenient way (i.e., included in the installer), so we > might succeed this time as well. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Andrea. > > > > >
