Sorry, I've been busy last week getting my barcode package a new home.
Almost forgot about the issues here.

On 04.03.2003 01:51:27 Christian Geisert wrote:
> if I understand it right we are allowed to distribute the LPPL
> hyphenation patterns (both source and binary) together with FOP
> if we add the LPPL LICENSE for the patterns (for example in the
> in the root dir) to the distribution ?
> (And to be safe I'll ask this on licensing@)

I want to ask at licensing first. I've finally received my confirmation
for admission to this mailing list. I'll do that today.

> other issues:
> -pt.xml iseems ok and can be put back?

No, it isn't IMO. It forbids commercial usage which is not forbidden by
FOP's license. We cannot guarantee that the file is indirectly used for
commercial purposes. I could be wrong. I'll ask on on licensing.

> -what about renaming en_GB.xml to en.xml?

+1

> -I remember *something* about hu.xml but couldn't find it

I wrote a mail to the original author but didn't get an answer. The mail
didn't bounce, though.

> -has anybody tried to contact the authors of patterns with unclear licence?

Forgot to do that. Sorry. Will do today.


I'm strongly for investigating the possibility to make use of the
hyphenation packages from OpenOffice. Although they are LGPL we could
support them and tell our users where they can get them. Not a very nice
thing because our users have to do the license evaluations themselves
but at least we are on the safe side. Is anyone out there who would like
to do that?

Jeremias Maerki


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

Reply via email to