openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org>
Subject RE: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
Date Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:20:38 GMT
@Rob,

I'm sorry.  I understood about there not being any presence in our source releases in any
form whatever.

I was looking only at stage (4, your number) and how inclusion in binary distributions occurs
as a consequence of the build process.  I am clear about the ASF Legal FAQ.  I was asking
how the AOO project deals (or will deal) with this specific case of a Category B licensed
component.

I thought it was a simple question about a specific case.  I had not checked on other third
party software under Category B licenses are included in AOO by some means.  Thanks for the
reference to hunspell.  I see that it is acknowledged in the LICENSE file of Apache OpenOffice
3.4.1.

Can I assume that essentially the same procedure applies to both hunspell and libwpd?
 
 - Dennis

PS: I am continually baffled by the notice requirements in the PDL and the Mozilla 1.1 License
(sections 3.5-3.6 and EXHIBIT A - Mozilla Public License) not being satisfied. This appears
to be the rule rather than the exception [;<).

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:29
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; <orcmid@apache.org>
Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>wrote:

> @Rob,
>
> Thanks.
>
> That is a great summary of what is involved.
>
> I am curious, in the case of libwpd, how binaries would be obtained and
> what the inclusion mechanism would be.  E.g., would there be shared
> libraries/DLLs built from unmodified external sources as part of the AOO
> build?
>
>

We wouldn't include it at all in our source distribution, not in source
form, not in binary form.  The legal page you referenced did not say that
we must include binaries.  It only said that at most we could include the
code in binary form in the release.

You can look at how we handle analogous things in AOO today, e.g.,
Hunspell, and search the list archives, on this list and legal-discuss,
for the voluminous prior discussions on this topic.

-Rob



> I assume unmodified header files (and library definitions) for access to
> the APIs of the libraries would be relied upon in a similar fashion during
> AOO (incremental) builds.
>
> Is that a reasonable sketch of how step (4) is accomplished in this case?
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 08:11
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; <orcmid@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > Licensing issues have not been entirely removed,
> > <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>.
> >
> > Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very
> > specific restrictions.  Having to build the code from source, especially
> > with modifications, is problematic.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions.  We
> have a good model to follow, based on past practice:
>
> 1) Don't put the code in our SVN
>
> 2) Use it only for optional features
>
> 3) Source distribution does not include the source
>
> 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions
>
> 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution
>
> -Rob
>
>
> >  - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pescetti@apache.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
> >
> > As you can see in
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/
> >
> > the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS
> > Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of
> > the licenses is MPLv2.
> >
> > Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to
> > do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to
> > incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now?
> >
> > Regards,
> >    Andrea.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message