Am 09.09.2011 12:06, schrieb Eike Rathke: > Hi Mathias, > > On Thursday, 2011-09-08 19:33:59 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote: > >> >> > I don't see why the current ICU 4.0.1 needed to be updated, >> >> > what "issues with headers" are you referring? >> >> >> >> I am not sure exactly when the ICU license changed but >> >> the first ICU versions had a restrictive license. >> > >> > Well, ICU 1.8.1 and later don't, see >> > http://userguide.icu-project.org/icufaq#TOC-How-is-the-ICU-licensed- >> > >> >> We have some code from ICU in the tree, Matthias' >> >> ApacheMigration list has: >> >> >> >> - get new break iterator data from current ICU >> > >> > That wouldn't change anything, our break iterator data has the same >> > IBM copyright text as the current ICU's data, for example see >> > http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/source/data/brkitr/char.txt >> > >> > In fact the entire ICU source is full of >> > "Copyright IBM ... - All Rights Reserved" without mentioning any >> > license, but ICU as a whole is licensed under that nonrestrictive >> > license mentioned above. I don't see any issue with that. >> >> So YAAL? :-) > > I'm glad I'm not ;-) > >> Honestly, we shouldn't have files in our repository without a copyright >> header. And if these files are under IBM's copyright, we should fix that. > > Please read again: the breakiterator data files were copied from ICU's > source and modified and contain an IBM copyright. All source files of > ICU contain an IBM copyright. Just pick any file under > icu/$INPATH/misc/build/icu/source/ and see. ICU's license is > http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html > What exactly would not be permissible with the breakiterator files given > that the license grants you "the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, > publish, distribute"?
If we can be sure about the IP situation, we should at least add copyright headers to the files, shouldn't we? Or put a license file into the repository. Regards, Mathias
