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 mailing lists show that we shouldn't include anything in our codebase that uses a licence that is not officially approved.
I wasn't aware that the hyphenation patterns had their own licences. So, the obvious conclusion is that we need to check every one of these files and remove the ones that are not compatible with the Apache licence. That includes checking where the files came from. Just for reference: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing On 13.02.2003 21:07:14 J.Pietschmann wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I posted a correction for a bug in HyphenationTree.java and an updated > > Portuguese hyphenation file some time ago (June 2002). Since I cannot be a > > direct developer (my company firewall prevents me from using CVS), someone > > (sorry, I do not remember who) took upon himself the job of modifying the > > source and updating the hyphenation file. > > IT was probably committed to HEAD only. I've applied the patch > to HyphenationTree.java. > > There is a small problem in pt.xml: > ) Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this material provided > that the > ) copies are not made or distributed for commercial or lucrative purpose, and that > ) the contents are not changed in any way. > > Oddly enough, the replaced file has a similar license. > Keiron, Arved: is this allowed in the repository? Recently they > stomped on LGPS on infrastructure, but this seems to be even > more restrictive? Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
