+1
On 25.02.2003 15:42:02 Christian Geisert wrote:
> I think it's sufficient to remove the patterns (both .xml
> and .hyp) from the distributions in question and then add
> an 'a' after the version number.
> What do you think?
Jeremias Maerki
---
J.Pietschmann wrote:
[..]
BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
no.xml appears first in FOP 0.19.0.
containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
The source distribution also includes fop.jar
kep
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Peter B. West wrote:
> As long as we are still able to recover complete historical binary
> distributions. If a problem arises over a past distribution, we are far
> better off if we can refer to the actual distribution, even if that is
> no longer available for general dist
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 20.02.2003 23:58:48 J.Pietschmann wrote:
BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
kept. Who has access to the distro repository?
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The important part for us is that the LPPL is not viral, with
the exception of the filename prohibition. In particular it
allows distributing derived work (read: binary FOP distributions)
without the code.
Yes, but see point 4, for example. That will be difficult for the
c
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> > I am donating the hyphenation file to the ASF, and although it would be
> > nice to keep the copyright, I think that would hamper future enhancements,
> > or not?
> As long as you don't choose to revoke the license for all
> future and past versions
On 20.02.2003 23:58:48 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Victor Mote wrote:
> > I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may
> > distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only
> > part of The Program is not allowed."
>
> Well, as I already wrote in ano
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am donating the hyphenation file to the ASF, and although it would be
> > nice to keep the copyright, I think that would hamper future enhancements,
> > or not?
> As long as you don't choose to revoke the license for all
> future and past versions (rather than forki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creating patterns for Portuguese is much simpler than with English.
Thank you for the explanation. I *knew* there should be something
easier than english. Or german. Or hungarian, FTM. There is still
an unresolved issue: why do so many people still use english? :-)
Act
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
You could be right about apply the Apache licence. Does everbody agree
in this case?
Unless the old license somehow prevents it, we can choose any
license we like for any Derived Work we can claim copyright for
(golly... "though shalt not and a sentence with a preposition,
Victor Mote wrote:
I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may
distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only
part of The Program is not allowed."
Well, as I already wrote in another post, it's not really
clear what "The Program" is in the
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 18.02.2003 22:07:13 J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
> > The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
> > of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
> > by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
> > mentioned above. 4, 5
On 19.02.2003 17:56:27 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > > I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat
> > (the relevant
> > > files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> > > these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be sub
On 18.02.2003 22:07:13 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
> of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
> by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
> mentioned above. 4, 5 and 6 can be easily checked and cor
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat
> (the relevant
> > files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> > these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject
> to Knuth's
> > license, which IMO is Apache-comp
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18/02/2003 19:23 cc:
On 17.02.2003 17:36:13 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > Todos, as I see them:
> > - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> > to be ok.
> > - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
>
> I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't modify the old pt.xml file, I wrote a new one entirely from
scratch. ...
Sorry for being unclear and short-spoken, I didn't meant to offend you.
However, did you really start with an empty file in an editor and typed
in all the pattern strings?
The issues are a
Christian Geisert wrote:
And IMHO (and IANAL etc.) this is the crux as the Apache Software
License does not forbid renamming the files.
Yes, that's hairsplitting and comletly against common sense
but remember we're talking about legal issues her.
I meant the following LPPL condition:
3. You mu
>And, well, I hope our PetroBras friend changed enough of the
>pt.xml to claim copyright, as he assigned it summarily to
>the ASF... nice, but a real legal burden! I checked it in, but
>now I think I should have asked for a paper first.
I didn't modify the old pt.xml file, I wrote a new one en
J.Pietschmann schrieb:
[..]
Ouch. I don't think we can distribute FOP without english
hyphenation.
Sure we *can* ;-) But if it's a good thing ...
I just had another look at the LPPL and the other files.
The LPPL file I examined seems to be harmless. The license
says we can distribute the hy
Christian Geisert wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
- Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
to be ok.
So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
Ouch. I don't think we can distribute FOP without english
hyphenation.
I just had another look at the LPPL and the o
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Todos, as I see them:
> - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> to be ok.
> - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat (the relevant
files are installed into /usr/share/texm
On 17.02.2003 17:11:42 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >>So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
> >
> > Yep, can you do that or shall I?
>
> I'll do it.
Thanks!
> [..]
>
> >>IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
> >>is the
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
[..]
So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
Yep, can you do that or shall I?
I'll do it.
[..]
IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
is the distribuition.
No. The patterns in FOP are currently in some XML format. The patterns
fo
I can do that. Thanks for the info.
On 17.02.2003 16:47:17 Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
> * Jeremias Maerki; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 14 Feb, 2003 wrote:
> >tr.xml
> >Can't find original file.
> >No licence. Check with author.
>
> Well, since I sent out the Turkish hyphenation file I should know where
>
* Jeremias Maerki; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 14 Feb, 2003 wrote:
tr.xml
Can't find original file.
No licence. Check with author.
Well, since I sent out the Turkish hyphenation file I should know where
it comes right. The trhyphen.tex is installed from the SuSE 8.1 distro
toganm@earth:~/hangar> rp
On 17.02.2003 16:16:55 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >>
> >>While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
> >>found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
> >>hyphenation tables and
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
[..]
While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
hyphenation tables and licensed under GNU LGPL ...
Do you have a link? LGPL is not unproblemat
On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
> > (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
> > "conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
> > under
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
(http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
"conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
under which the modified file (de.xml) is distributed must meet some
re
On 14.02.2003 16:30:14 Clay Leeds wrote:
> A good call. In fact, if nothing else, we could supply a "ReadMe" or
> "Resources" file with links/URLs to the hyphenation files (and anything
> other useful add-ons for FOP, like jfor).
There is already: http://xml.apache.org/fop/resources.html
It jus
Keiron Liddle wrote:
I'd say we can't keep something like that within our codebase because it
contradicts the Apache licence. It is entirely possible that someone
sells a product that uses FOP. That wouldn't violate the Apache licence
but the licence of this hyphenation file. Recent discussions on
I've finished checking all hyphenation files in the main branch. The
results are scary. 2 (fi and pl) out of 20 files probably (!) are ok.
The rests needs to be removed IMO, at least until the original authors
were contacted and they gave their ok.
cs.xml
Can't find original file.
GPL!!!
da.xml
I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
(http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
"conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
under which the modified file (de.xml) is distributed must meet some
requirements. The APL cann
That's correct. When you donate source code (be it Java or something
else) to a project of the Apache Foundation it gets the Apache licence.
You must also be entitled to transfer the rights on the code to Apache
Foundation. For example, when you write code when working for a company
you may not don
MAIL PROTECTED]
om> cc:
Assunto: Re: Licence issues in
hyphenation patterns (was:
13/02/
> I'd say we can't keep something like that within our codebase because it
> contradicts the Apache licence. It is entirely possible that someone
> sells a product that uses FOP. That wouldn't violate the Apache licence
> but the licence of this hyphenation file. Recent discussions on various
> Apa
I'd say we can't keep something like that within our codebase because it
contradicts the Apache licence. It is entirely possible that someone
sells a product that uses FOP. That wouldn't violate the Apache licence
but the licence of this hyphenation file. Recent discussions on various
Apache mailin
39 matches
Mail list logo
