On 25/11/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote:
Il 24/11/2011 23.53, Mathias Bauer ha scritto:
It seems that you don't get the point. I just wanted to mention that the
dictionary files we have in svn can be seen as and*end product* and so
probably(!) are comparable more with a binary file than with a source
file.
Very smart. Indeed, dictionaries can be considered to be both in
"source" and "binary" form, and this could be used conveniently for
those dictionaries (not all, but some) that can be distributed in
"binary" form only per the current Apache policy.
I think this was the main reason why Andrea Pescetti quoted the FSE
answer about "mere aggregation" of GPLed dictionary.
One of the reasons indeed, but not the main reason. The main reason for
it was that, unlike what would happen when using a GPL library (i.e.,
that the "virality" of GPL would mean that the GPL applied to the
program as a whole), using a GPL dictionary won't impact on the copyleft
status of the other code.
This is possible since the office suite is totally independent from the
dictionary; packaging both OpenOffice.org (LGPL, but would work with
Apache License too) and the Italian dictionary (GPL) in the same
installer file is just a matter convenience; and the installer can
install both, just like any installer for a Linux-based system would
install many programs stored on the same physical DVD and having
mutually incompatible licenses. OpenOffice.org and the Italian
dictionary are "merely aggregated" in the same package, like Apache
httpd and the GIMP are "merely aggregated" on an installation DVD. This
took some years, but was eventually clarified for good.
Regards,
Andrea.
