If I remember correctly and unless it has changed, some patches were
applied to ICU during the build. This required a specific version of ICU
to which the patches were applied, and this is why the ICU source was
kept inside the OOo source (I believe).
Javier
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello Eike;
I think you are right. I should mention that on FreeBSD, LibreO uses
the preinstalled hunspell package so using the upstream version is
possible already. Furthermore, we should use the same approach for ICU
and other dependencies: if the system already has such packages, why
not use them?
I guess there may be problems for specific platforms like Windows, so
there's where the binary and NOTICE files kich in.
Cheers,
Pedro.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:41:46 +0200, Eike Rathke <o...@erack.de> wrote:
Hi,
I was digging a bit into 3rd party licenses for the Hunspell issue and
came across Category B: Reciprocal Licenses in
http://apache.org/legal/3party.html and noted that Hunspell is
tri-licensed also under MPL 1.1 that would be permissive as long as the
code is distributed only in binary form and the NOTICE file labels its
reciprocity, if I understood correctly.
Currently OOo needs Hunspell in source code form only because very few
patches are applied to be able to build it on Solaris, Windows and
MingW, and one patch against a stack smasher. Am I right in assuming
that if Hunspell adapted the upstream version such that these patches
were superfluous, then AOOo would be able to build against a system
Hunspell or on systems where Hunspell is not available or for binary
distributions a build could include a binary of the library if the
proper NOTICE entry is provided? To me this sounds like a solution to
the problem.
Eike
