Thanks, Steven and Dirk for responding!
On 17.03.2003 14:28:44 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> > > 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 ?
Under many different licenses (GPL, LGPL, LPPL, public domain, no
license.......) That's what makes this clean-up work such a PITA.
And then there's the files from the original TeX distribution by Donald
Knuth which are assumed to be in the public domain but with certain
restrictions (modified file shall not contain the same filename as the
original). Problem there is that there is not really something you could
call a license associated with the distribution, at least non that I
could find. This is all more or less based on "common knowledge", rather
than hard facts on file.
> > > 2. If the former (of ) 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).
That's pretty clear. I was rather thinking about people sending a new
source file to a mailing list of an Apache project. If a grant is
necessary for each and every new file that is submitted, we're going to
scare away potential contributors. From reading the mails about the new
license 2.0 this seems to be adressed there. Anyway, I get the
impression no grant is filed in most cases in most projects at Apache
today. Or do I misunderstand?
I've received an email a few minutes ago from a FOP contributor telling
me that I will receive a confirmation mail from the original author of
one of the problematic hyphenation files, that he allows us to use his
file. But strictly following the rules I have to ask him to file a grant.
I hope he won't mind.
> 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.
Is that necessary? Isn't putting an xy.xml.LICENSE file alongside an
xy.xml file enough to mark it as NOT Apache?
> > > 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.).
Aargh! The world would be so boring if everything were simple. :-)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]