Hi Gianluca; My understanding, but I can be wrong because I have never done a release:
1) We have buildbots. 2) If a volunteer offers a binary for a platform we dont support, or an extension, we still have to control its content and GPLd stuff will not be carried by Apache servers. 3) We could provide a link to a third party site though (Apache-Extras or whatever). Maybe we should keep all dictionaries in an Apache extras site and keep in SVN only some for reference? Cheers, Pedro. --- On Mon, 11/7/11, Gianluca Turconi <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Gianluca Turconi <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?) > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, November 7, 2011, 5:14 AM > Firstly, thanks to Eric for the > explanation. > > I'm not a developer so, it's rather important that I > understand how the whole thing technically works. :-) > > More comments follow below. > > eric b ha scritto: > > 3) at buildtime, the content of every locale is zipped > as an extension > > > > At least this is what I read in > dictionaries/util/makefile.mk > > > > > > 4) every zipped dictionary is delivered in the solver, > and included in the final package, depending on the goal as > an extension > > > > See > main/setup_native/source/packinfo/package_names.txt > for the list of available dictionaries. > > > > 5) at packaging time : > > > > when packaging an archive, on a given OS, a list of > dictionary is used, to add the one needed for a given > locale. > > > > See > main/setup_native/source/packinfo/spellchecker_selection.txt > to check what dictionary will be installed, for a given > locale. > > > > I'm a bit unsure, but the pre-installed dictionaries > (or maybe they are at user install time) are installed as > extensions. > This is the conclusion that Andrea also gave. > > However, I'm trying to understand Apache legal approach to > code and binary releases. > > What I've understood is that Apache doesn't allow a code > release that includes parts ruled from a license not > compatible with Apache license. > > However, if I'm not wrong, all those not compatible parts > can be hosted elsewhere (Google extras?) and incorporated at > phase 3) or 5) by an external builder/packager. > > Would the resulting binary/combined package legally > distributable as "Apache OOo" or not ? Would it be > distributable via the OOo usual mirror network? > > What I'm trying to understand is whether the *binary* > release of OOo would be managed through internal Apache > hardware or not. > > If the answer is no, and the normal binary release phase is > managed by external > volunteers/corporations/put-here-your-preferred-entity, I > think there is no need to distribute an executable file for > *end users* without all the linguistic tools needed by those > users. > > The linguistic tools (and GUI translations too?) may be > hosted elsewhere and incorporate as described above, until > the project will have enough manpower to change the main > spell checking engine and dictionaries. > > I hope I've clearly explained what I meant saying. :-) > > Regards, > > Gianluca > > -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di > fantascienza, > fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e > tradizionale: > http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ > >
