> > Before we start here's a little background on the hyphenation stuff:
> > Our hyphenation file are XML files that are derived from TeX hyphenation

Under what license where the original TeX files ?

> > 2. If the former (of [1]) is true, we need a grant from the copyright
> > holder of the original file, right? What if the original file is unclear

This depends on what the license was you got it under.

If there is no (explicit) license; you'll have to indeed get permission of
the authors as the default generally is 'No' (depending on age of the
file and country).

> > 3. (Question is somewhat general) What's the threshold for the necessity
> > of a grant? Does a non-committer have to submit a grant on a single new
> > file?

If code written by someone else under a non-apache license is imported; it
will need to a grant to become part of the apache proper (as to allow us
to remove the original and cut-and-paste the asf license into it).


it needs to be labeled as NOT apache; and have the right license next to
it.  See for example in cvs


Also note that it is in its own directory.

> > 4. Some of the hyphenation pattern files are licensed under the LPPL
> > (LaTeX project public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html).
> > We'd like to have clearance to use, modify and distribute files under
> > this license in the FOP project.

Ack - will post on that in a moment.

> > 5. Can we modify and relicense under the ASL hyphenation pattern files
> > clearly stated as being in the public domain without having a grant but

Propably - but depending on what country that('this is public domain') was
'stated' in and at what day; as the Berne convention was not signed by all
countries at the same time. (The Berne convention effectively killed the
concept of 'Public Domain' or -non- copyrighted material in most
countries - and makes the statement 'this is public domain' somethings
ineffective if not backed up by a license, grant and/or copyright.).

> > 6. We can't use files containing a restriction like "Can be used freely
> > for non-commercial purposes.", except if we can positively identify the
> > copyright holder and get a grant, right?

Correct - as that would mean that you can download something from
apache.org which has _MORE_ restrictive elements in it than the ASF
license.  Anything we include under 3rd party licenses should be as
restrictive or -less- restrictive than our own license. So that when you
download something from *.apache.org it can always be used in with the ASF
level of freedom; and perhaps some bits may give you even -more- leeway.
Never less.


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

Reply via email to