http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3a.html

I see some problems here:

a) can we really take a LPPLed work and make it a LGPLed work? Don't think so

b) The LPPL says that you must tell where the original work is. Exactly, so that
   people don't need to search for it (or ship the orignal, too). Just telling
   "from Latex" is not enough iMHO, there are some versions of it...

Changing subject since that also applied to en-US and tt_IT. where the it_IT at
least correctly claims it is LPPL...

Regards,

Rene

point a)

Yes, one can take it and use LGPL for the modified ones.
10.a reads:
"A Derived Work may be distributed under a different license provided that
license itself honors the conditions listed in Clause 6 above, in regard to the
Work, though it does not have to honor the rest of the conditions in this license."

point b)
Yes, the dictionaries lack the documentation requirement. (point 6b & 6d)

6 a) doesn't applie since the modification cannot be used as replacement for the
original (format was changed, albeit slightly) 6c is already fulfilled.

aha. OK, so they still violate the LPPL. thanks for the heads-up.

must have overread the part which allows re-licensing...

hi folks!
If this things are really illegal, then please remove them from the current
project. 
I do currently not maintain anything on OOo (lost my cvs access-keys and data
after a hd-crash some months ago) so it might be better if you could remove all
the things from that part of the project. Sorry!

hth

marco

Created attachment 33564 [details]
mention hyphenation files

I've attached a patch to the README that links the original file. With this 
patch, everything should be okay to my understanding. 
 

and you know that the current file there is exactly what that stuff was based on
or whether an older version was used? In the secpnd case, AFAIS, we have to ship
*the old file* or tell which version it was baed on...
Or when it gets updated that link also doesn't have real effect...

Created attachment 33589 [details]
now refers to version number

rene: "and you know that the current file there is exactly what that stuff was  
based on": yes, I just checked that. I attached a new diff of the README that  
now includes the version number of the original file. 
 

cool. I'll then reassign the issue to you and tell this issue plase when it's
committed :-). Can you also verify/fix the other ones so that we finally can
legally shipa ll the hyphs already in the source? (if you want...)

I cannot commit stuff so I'm not sure if it makes sense to have that issue 
assigned to me. Also, I don't have time to fix this for other languages. 
 

well, you can attach a patch and let me/memeth/someone else commit it, so..

wrt other languages, well, hmm, ok...

Fixed in CWS ooo202dicts02, but we need a new issue for all integrated LPPLed
hyphenation patterns to solve the problem of the missing and presumably
incompatible licenses.

.

Laci, you did not update the de_DE/makefile.mk, therefore the
README_hyph_de_DE.txt will not be packaged.

nemeth->timar: de_DE/makefile.mk is OK. Thanks for the report! 

SBA: Verified in Linux Build of CWS ooo202dicts02.
Note: The line about the license reads
<QUOTE>
License:  GNU LGPL license.
<UNQUOTE>
MH told me this is OK.

quick look at the ooo202dicts02 stuff:    
    
de_DE fixed. yes.    
cs_CZ contains no license info whatsoever except LGPL in makefile.mk... What    
are these patterns based on?    
same with da_DK, en_GB, en_US and ru_RU.    
it_IT only says LGPL without fullfilling the LPPL.    
hu_HU looks ok (Didn't look at hunhyph itself, though)    
nl_NL also says that it is based on the TeX patterns but not on which or    
doesn't ship the original file and therfore also violates the LPPL.  
  
Two possibilities: Use other issues for the other ones and change the title of  
this one to cover de_DE only or reopen this one. I decide for the latter one  
since IMHO we should *not* ship LPPL-violating material.  
  
Maybe someone should point the LaTeX people to this issue...  
    

Hi Rene,

You are absolutely right. Unfortunatelly, I have misinterpreted this issue,
because I have concentrated only the de_DE specific description.

And what is more, LPPL is incompatible with LGPL:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

Now de_DE hyph. patterns are better in the source, becasuse hasn't already
violated the LPPL, but, it is not enough. :(

hu_HU is OK. The original, not extended Hungarian patterns (huhyphn) was
licensed under GPL, but we (Hungarian NLP) got a permission from its author,
Nagy Bence, to license the patterns under the LGPL, like Hungarian spell
checking dictionaries.

I believe, en_US, etc are not OK.

Fortunatelly, we can solve _all_ LPPL license problem without removing the
hyphenation patterns by an "LGPLizing" procedure: hyphenating unmunched spell
checking dictionaries, and generating new patterns by patgen. Unfortunatelly,
*now* (this month) I want to work for bread and butter, so any help are welcome.
Also there is a problem for me (and investors of Hungarian StarOffice): We'd
like to close CWS ooo202dicts02, because it is not only for "solving" hyph_de_DE
license issue, so I will remove all hyphenation patterns (except Hungarian)
temporarily, if you want solve this problem immediately. But, if these
problematic hyphenation patterns have already been in OOo 2.0.1, I would rather
ask time to solve this problem, targeted to 2.0.3, associated to a new issue. I
suggest this issue let's be de_DE specific only, and reopened after 2.0.2.
Thanks for your report. I apologize, Laci

Help in hyphenation pattern licenses:
http://offo.sourceforge.net/hyphenation/licenses.html
cs_CZ license looks GPL. en_US hyphen.tex has (non LGPL compatible) TeX license.

> And what is more, LPPL is incompatible with LGPL:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

Bullshit. (Sorry for the words).
1st of all, the licenses choose to release the work on a different license thatn
LPPL, according to the LPPL (i.e. must meet documentation requirement and don't
claim to be original work/don't act as direct replacement for original work)

2nd that page compares compatibility with *GPL*, not *L*GPL.

Please don't confuse this.

You don't need to generate a new wordlist and hyphenate that and generate a new
one. You just take the LPPL one, modify it and release that modification under
LGPL, with the required documentation stressed above.

Again:
Compatibility with GPL is useless comparison as OOo is LGPL
Having a look whether you can integrate LPPL licensened stuff is futile as well,
since you make that LPPL stuff LGPL.

The only thing to consider is:
What do you have to document to be able to release the modification of the LPPL
stuff under LGPL.

Having the de-pattern is is perfectly OK, since it is LGPL (= modified work
released under a different License according to point 10a of LPPL)
What was missing was the documentation required for this change to be "allowed"
by LPPL, namely the points 6b & 6d of LPPL.
The documentation is now available, thus fixed for de.

So yes, please keep this issue for de_DE only, but mark it fixed again. I'll
change the summary.

SBA->MH: As discussed, please take over.

@_rene_: do you still have something to add to cloph's last statement ? I
consider to add the text of the LPPL license to the THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.html
and to review the external.openoffice.org pages to be sure to have it all
completly documented.

well, de_DE is fixed. the rest (except hu_HU) has still serious problems. cs_CZ
is GPL, the rest and it maybe too (didn't look) violates the LPPL etc.

If we keep this issue for german only then it is fixed, yes, otherwise not. But
please close this issue to get all the other illegal stuff/stuff with wrong
license fixed....

rene, you need to be more precise for coming forward:

for czech, I don't see a connection to LPPL, please explain, as well as for all
the other rest.

hmm. must've confused something about cs_CZ.

wrt the other ones the situation is clear. Read this issue:

------- Additional comments from rene Fri Feb 10 05:11:40 -0800 2006 -------

quick look at the ooo202dicts02 stuff:    
    
de_DE fixed. yes.    
cs_CZ contains no license info whatsoever except LGPL in makefile.mk... What    
are these patterns based on?    
same with da_DK, en_GB, en_US and ru_RU.    
it_IT only says LGPL without fullfilling the LPPL.    
hu_HU looks ok (Didn't look at hunhyph itself, though)    
nl_NL also says that it is based on the TeX patterns but not on which or    
doesn't ship the original file and therfore also violates the LPPL.  

Also read the LPPL, it says you have to clearly tell on what the file is based
on (in which case absed on the tex patterns is too lax) or ship the original
file, too...

is it only an assumption, that the dictionaries you mentioned are based on LPPL
based stuff or is it a fact? There is no statement about this, so I have to
assume that the copyright holders have done right to put their licenses on their
work.

they are from latex. so it is LPPL:

The de patterns also didn't say they wewre based on LPPL ones, but only that
tehy were based on the LateX ones withozt specifying anything concrete. Only
after I filed this issue this got resolved (and yes, dehpyhn.tex says LPPL). I'd
really not surpised if the other patters (which also *are* based on the TeX
patterns are LPPLed, too. Anything else would wonder me).

Plainly assuming that the converion author did something sensible is wrong, see
the german example.

But I can try to look at tetex' patterns.

Not to mention some of those patterns in the source *do not have ANY* mention of
any license....

reopen, was we know en_*, it etc. still have the problem. please finally fix 
this....

Rene: but this issue is assigned to you and has target 2.0.3.

Please file new issue for the remaining problems.

README_hyph_et_EE.txt reads:

Hyphenation file is adapted to OpenOffice.org by Jaak Pruulmann (jjpp@meso.ee,
http://www.meso.ee/~jjpp/speller/ ) on the base of the LaTeX hyphenation file
created by Enn
Saar (saar@aai.ee), who has signed the JCA (Joint Copyright Agreement) allowing
to use
his work for OpenOffice.org.
The work of Jaak Pruulmann is licensed under LGPL (GNU Lesser General Public
License).

IIUC, distribution of the et_EE hyphenation patterns is ok.

doko: no, it's not ok. the LPPL says that you either need to reference the
oriiginal file or ship the original file together with the modified one. I don't
think just saying that it's derived from the latex stuff (it's obvious) is
enough, I think you also need to say which file and (eventually) which revision,
if there is more. If there is only one revision it might be ok to scratch the
version/revision but at least the exact file should be referenced.

I've just added info on original hyphenation patterns for Polish. By the way, we
have a README in the latest version but it is not commited to the sources (see
issue 71993). They are available via:

http://pl.openoffice.org/pliki/hyph_pl_PL.zip

Readme is available here:

http://pl.openoffice.org/pliki/README_hyph_pl_PL.txt

set reasonable target milestone

rene: you somehow got this bug assigned...

I take this issue over

I'm lokking at each affected issue to solve the problem of vialation of LPPL

.

The Apache Software Foundation does not use GPLd software in its releases.
We recommend the Apache License 2 as it is GPL3 compatible but is, in
general, less restricted for general use.

For the time being dictionaries and hyphenation rules have been removed
from the tree for IP conformance reasons