Issue 74304 - Include link to license of hyph_it_IT.dic
Summary: Include link to license of hyph_it_IT.dic
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: lingucomponent
Classification: Code
Component: other (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.2
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 3.2.1
Assignee: stefan.baltzer
QA Contact: issues@lingucomponent
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Blocks: 74283
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2007-02-07 18:09 UTC by doko
Modified: 2010-05-28 18:42 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: PATCH
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
new Readme-File (946 bytes, text/plain)
2010-01-01 09:52 UTC, Mechtilde
no flags Details
diff file against OOO320_m8 (839 bytes, text/plain)
2010-01-01 09:53 UTC, Mechtilde
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description doko 2007-02-07 18:09:57 UTC
hyph_it_IT.dic, as found in
http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/hyph_it_IT.zip

is derived from a file licensed under the LPPL, but it violates at least
paragraph 6d of the LPPL.

Needed information: Either distribute the original file as well, or (better)
name the file and the version of the file which the derived work is based on.
The LPPL requests "Information that is sufficient to obtain a complete,
unmodified copy of the Work."

The LPPL can be found at http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt
Comment 1 stefan.baltzer 2008-10-30 11:38:21 UTC
SBA: Confirming 21 sub-issues of issue 74283 at once.
I believe that doko did the right thing and could/should have set the issues to
NEW right after submitting (Just like all "CanConfirm rights owners" do when
submitting issues)

Thus I beieve that taking a second look at EACH of these files is not worth the
effort. The state "Unconfirmed" is irritating queries used in daily QA work.
Comment 2 Mechtilde 2009-12-20 09:18:19 UTC
grap
Comment 3 Andrea Pescetti 2009-12-20 11:41:53 UTC
This issue is no longer current: all the needed license changes have been
applied by the original authors and applied. See issue 75287 for more
information. You can proceed and close this issue.
Comment 4 Mechtilde 2009-12-20 12:05:37 UTC
no the actual licence text for the hyphenation.dic found in OOO320_m8 contains a
LPPL violation

I wrote a mail to the author of the adaptions to confirm some small changes in
the license text as it is already done with
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=74290

Comment 5 Andrea Pescetti 2009-12-20 13:22:05 UTC
We should share some more details maybe, but the fundamental reasoning flaw is
in the original post: there is (as of now, late 2009) NOTHING derived from LPPL
files in the Italian hyphenation patterns, because the author of the file
originally licensed under LPPL accepted to relicense it under LGPL. This was
done under guidance from the Italian N-L project. And, as I understand it, this
closes the issue by removing the root cause.

The file README_hyph_it_IT.txt in the shipped dict-it.oxt says "Based on the TeX
hyphenation tables by Claudio Beccari". This is probably the file that you
erroneously assume to be under LPPL. Look for it on CTAN then and see for
yourself that it isn't licensed under LPPL any longer, but under LGPL.
http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/language/hyphenation/ithyph.tex (in case links
in issue 75287 do not work for you)
So: no LPPL, no LPPL violation.

I actually believe that http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=75287
explained it all, but I hope things are clear now.

About your initiative of e-mailing authors, I would find more efficient to
discuss this kind of issues in appropriate mailing list and to delegate the N-L
leads, who might have better knowledge in some cases. Anyway, please CC the
Italian N-L Project Leads listed in
http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html for any communication you will
have with authors: if we made something wrong, we would like to be informed
about it.

If you believe you are still right, of course we can continue our discussion,
but I will need precise details since everything I was able to find so far
confirms my opinion that this issue is obsolete and should just be closed.
Comment 6 Mechtilde 2010-01-01 09:50:28 UTC
as described in http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=75287
=> http://tug.ctan.org/cgi-bin/ctanPackageInformation.py?id=ithyph

there is no derived work from LPPL

Also for TeX the license is LGPL

I add the link to the origin licence declaration to the Readme file.

so I think it documents better the right licening based on an unusual situation

Comment 7 Mechtilde 2010-01-01 09:52:04 UTC
Created attachment 66927 [details]
new Readme-File
Comment 8 Mechtilde 2010-01-01 09:53:35 UTC
Created attachment 66928 [details]
diff file against OOO320_m8
Comment 9 Mechtilde 2010-01-01 09:54:34 UTC
.
Comment 10 Mechtilde 2010-01-01 09:55:24 UTC
.
Comment 11 lohmaier 2010-03-26 18:51:47 UTC
fixed in cws cloph14
Comment 12 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 09:43:33 UTC
Taking ownership, setting target to OOO 3.2.1.
Comment 13 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 09:46:10 UTC
.
Comment 14 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 09:50:02 UTC
.
Comment 15 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 09:50:43 UTC
.
Comment 16 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 12:12:29 UTC
Copied new version of README_hyph_it_IT.txt to extension.
Fixed in CWS dict321.
Comment 17 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 12:12:56 UTC
.
Comment 18 thomas.lange 2010-04-16 15:18:45 UTC
.
Comment 19 Mechtilde 2010-04-20 08:52:44 UTC
I see the changes in the *.oxt of the CWS dict321


@ precetti

Please take care that the changes are also available in the Extension from

http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/Dict_it_IT
Comment 20 Andrea Pescetti 2010-05-15 13:33:29 UTC
The new version of the extension, same as the one found in OOo 3.2.1-RC1, is now
available from http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/dict-it

This is the extension the Italian N-L project has maintained since 2008. The
extension Mechtilde indicated is probably equivalent, but it is not under our
control.

(also changed the issue title so that it reflects reality: the license has
always been OK, it was simply not linked from the README file).
Comment 21 Mechtilde 2010-05-28 18:42:21 UTC
verified also in dict_It at the extensions site => closed