I looked again this morning. Is there something I was supposed to get from that? I did not see anything that would make me think the current text in flex-utilities/Squiggly/LICENSE is correct. IMO, there are two choices:
1) go against the folks who prefer short licenses and include the entire Hunspell README in the LICENSE. 2) Use a simple pointer without copyright or excerpt from the README as described in the how-to such as: This product bundles SCOWL and Friends dictionaries, which are available under a "BSD/MIT-like" license. For details, see dictionaries/en_US/README_en_US.txt or dictionaries/en_GB/README_en_GB.txt. Either one is fine with me. Open Office definitely leads the way in long licenses. I think what we have right now is at best misleading as one could be fooled into thinking the excerpt is the complete license. I know you have additional text above saying to look for more details, but I don't understand why we wouldn't want to use the template. Every time we try to create our own wording we run the risk of doing it wrong, and the response on legal-discuss did not say the current text is correct. -Alex On 9/24/14 7:58 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >Did you actually look at the links/reachearch or what currently in Git? >In particular look at the aggregated files from Open Office. > >Does what we currently have meet the minimum legal requirements? And if >it doesn't exactly what requirement are we not meeting? > >Thanks >Justin
