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 cannot meet them IMO. Therefore we must remove this file. Do you guys agree?
We should probably do the same as Andrew C. Oliver did for POI. See here: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPOIAudits/20030205 On 14.02.2003 02:52:45 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 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 Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
