Thilo Goetz wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
The LICENSE file is the Apache 2.0 license.
The README says The Snowball stemmers are licensed under
the BSD License (see http://snowball.tartarus.org/license.php), with
Copyright (c) 2001,
Dr Martin Porter, and (for the Java developments) Copyright (c) 2002,
Richard Boulton.
The license page http://snowball.tartarus.org/license.php says
"
All the software given out on this Snowball site is covered by the
BSD License (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html>), with
Copyright (c) 2001, Dr Martin Porter, and (for the Java developments)
Copyright (c) 2002, Richard Boulton.
Essentially, all this means is that you can do what you like with the
code, except claim another Copyright for it, or claim that it is
issued under a different license.
"
Is this an issue? In what way are we *not* claiming it is issued
under a different license?
It is my understanding that we can ship code with a BSD license, as
long as we explicitly document it. That is, we need to document it in
the notices file etc. This is not to say that we necessarily want to
ship the snowball stemmers with the core release right now, but I
think in principle there is no problem with the BSD license. For
example, check the recent Felix release, they ship code under a
variety of licenses.
Good. I think it is important to separate in this project the items
being redistributed under the BSD license, if there are any, and other
works, because of the requirement to *not* relicense the parts under the
BSD under the APL2 license.
And I guess this project needs a "NOTICES" file, documenting all of
these issues.
-Marshall
- Re: License question for Snowball annotators in Sandbox Marshall Schor
-