> ) 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.

      >I agree.
      >Should probably take a look at it and if we cannot distribute then
      remove them.
      >Maybe we could try to make them available in some other way.

I used the license above because the old file did so. I think they came "as
is" from the TEX sources, and the original licenses where kept. But my
hyphenation file was written from scratch, and I have no objection to
changing the license to match FOP's. However, I would like to add a
matching Portuguese translation to the file, to keep consistency. Which
license is to be used for the hyphenation files? The same used for the Java
code, I supose?

=============================================
Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
Petrobrás (http://www.petrobras.com.br)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=============================================
"A História é uma velhota que se repete sem cessar."
        Eça de Queiroz, in "Cartas de Inglaterra"






                                                                                       
                    
                      "Keiron Liddle"                                                  
                    
                      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        Para:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]        
                    
                      om>                      cc:                                     
                    
                                               Assunto:  Re: Licence issues in 
hyphenation patterns (was:  
                      13/02/2003 23:52          HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese 
hyphenation file        
                      Favor responder a         update)                                
                    
                      fop-dev                                                          
                    
                                                                                       
                    
                                                                                       
                    




> 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 agree.
Should probably take a look at it and if we cannot distribute then remove
them.
Maybe we could try to make them available in some other way.

> 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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to