Marshall Schor wrote:
The LICENSE file is the Apache 2.0 license.
The README says The Snowball stemmers are licensed under
the BSD License (see http://snowball.tartarus.org/license.php), with
Copyright (c) 2001,
Dr Martin Porter, and (for the Java developments) Copyright (c) 2002,
Richard Boulton.
The license page http://snowball.tartarus.org/license.php says
"
All the software given out on this Snowball site is covered by the BSD
License (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html>), with Copyright
(c) 2001, Dr Martin Porter, and (for the Java developments) Copyright
(c) 2002, Richard Boulton.
Essentially, all this means is that you can do what you like with the
code, except claim another Copyright for it, or claim that it is issued
under a different license.
"
Is this an issue? In what way are we *not* claiming it is issued under
a different license?
It is my understanding that we can ship code with a BSD license, as long
as we explicitly document it. That is, we need to document it in the
notices file etc. This is not to say that we necessarily want to ship
the snowball stemmers with the core release right now, but I think in
principle there is no problem with the BSD license. For example, check
the recent Felix release, they ship code under a variety of licenses.
--Thilo
