I agree that case should be investigated further. I know nothing of the format of these dictionaries. Where is one that you recommend for closer examination?
Then it can be verified how much they are source codes or data files that do [not] have the quality of binaries that the category B rule is intended as a protective-measure for. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Mathias Bauer [mailto:mathias_ba...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 14:53 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?) Am 24.11.2011 21:27, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > Simple point: Something is category B because someone with the > authority to do so put a category B license on it. It doesn't matter > what it is or how wrong-headed they were to do that. > > More complicated: It is important to understand the principle behind > how category B material is handled the way it is in binaries. It is > about not having users commit errors with regard to the licensing of > some material and making it difficult to innocently violate the > applicable license. It seems that you don't get the point. I just wanted to mention that the dictionary files we have in svn can be seen as and *end product* and so probably(!) are comparable more with a binary file than with a source file. This would leave the option that we even can ship them with a source release. I don't say that this is a fact, I just wanted to point out a possibility that is worth investigating. Regards, Mathias
