You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2014/09/01 00:19:06 UTC
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Hi,
> The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not a
> separate file in the release artifact.
It generated from the source and is in the release.
> IMO, we can link to link AOO
Which is exactly what we are doing in the RC.
> Remember that the Flex SDK already has a category X dependency for the
> optional embedded font jars. The code that calls the category X jars is
> bundled in the one and only release artifact, but the code is set up such
> that those category X jars can be missing.
Which is exactly what the Squiggly release candidate is doing ie you can compile it even if the dictionary files are missing.
> The mentors ruled that was sufficient because nobody "must" download the category X jars to
> successfully use the Flex SDK.
And the Squiggly release candidate doesn't force you to to download any category X jars (or in this case LGPL data). So again we are in compliance..
> I would expect we would do the same for Squiggly.
We are.
> But if you want, we can ask on the legal-discuss thread.
There is nothing that needs to be asked as the matter is resolved. Alex if you think it's not please put it to a VOTE.
If and when legal come up with a clear response we'll abide by that and change if required how Squiggly is packackaged, or make it download LGPL code.
And can people please take a look at the RC to see if there are any other issues we need to fix up.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> "If you want just a spell-checker package, then that is fine. You just
> can't produce something that requires Category X (whether build or run
> time)."
And Squiggly doesn't require anything that is Category X. The dictionaries come in many licences, it just seems most are LGPL.
This is no different to how we teat fonts, people can use what ever font they want (include GPL ones) in their flex applications, however we can't bundled a LGPL or non Adobe compatible license font in a release.
> I don't think this is the case, so I think he's saying we can't release it
> unless we could find or create an english dictionary that isn't category X.
We already have, see the SCOWL link in the same the legal discussion. [1]
Justin
1.http://wordlist.aspell.net/dicts/
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible.
Nope in this case it's quite clear cut. Either SCOWL contains a Category X license or not.
Every single other objection that has raised has been sorted by the discussion on legal and the current RC still complies with Apache licensing.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> And ... when preparing the next RC ... if you could do a RELEASE run, we could stage our first Release as Maven artifacts too.
The current SNAPSHOP needs to be reviewed first.
Thanks,
Justin
AW: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
And ... when preparing the next RC ... if you could do a RELEASE run, we could stage our first Release as Maven artifacts too. Usually you would have to override the "type" property in the maven.xml to trigger deploying to the release staging repo.
Would definitely like giving this a test-run before I start adding maven deployment stuff to the other sub-projects.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 1. September 2014 16:47
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
>> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson
>>is
>> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
>
>And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release
>candidate. Unless anyone has any other objections?
Squiggly has been legally cleared for take-off!
Now that we know it gets to fly solo, I have one concern, then some stuff
to consider:
The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net. The dictionaries at open office.org and
the dictionaries linked to at Hunspell's site seem to be LPGL versions for
English. How about we tweak the README by replacing:
You can obtain dictionary files from:
http://extensions.openoffice.org
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"
With:
You can obtain en_US and en_CA dictionaries under a BSD/MIT-like
license from:
http://wordlist.aspell.net/dicts/
You can obtain other dictionary files from:
http://wordlist.aspell.net/other-dicts/
http://extensions.openoffice.org
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"
But note that many of these dictionaries are under LPGL licenses.
Then if we do another RC, I'm wondering:
1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package? I would
have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
results. I was expecting a separate zip in a doc folder on dist like we
do in the SDK. After all, it isn't really source?
2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
binaries folder on dist?
3) Could the README end with the same "thank you" we have in the SDK's
README?
Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy!
The Apache Flex Project
<http://flex.apache.org>
Other than that, I'm good to go. LICENSE and NOTICE and RELEASE_NOTES look
good and the build completed.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Mihai Chira <mi...@gmail.com>.
@Chris we tested the normal ANT build of the originally donated code.
Sorry that I don't have time to test the new versions.
On 2 September 2014 12:22, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> @Mihai: Are you testing the Mavenized version or simply the output of the normal ANT build?
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Mihai Chira <mi...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 12:42
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
>
> I hope so. But from what I remember (and I wasn't the main developer
> dealing with this), the flex version of the project depended on
> classes inside the non-flex version, which means that if the wrong
> compiler argument was used, it would also replace the flex-SpellUI
> with the non-flex-SpellUI. But again, things may have changed a lot
> since then.
>
> On 2 September 2014 11:38, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new
>>> step to the release verification process to create a project without
>>> Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex
>>> project.
>>
>> I think this is just a matter of including the right swcs and not all of them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
AW: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
@Mihai: Are you testing the Mavenized version or simply the output of the normal ANT build?
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Mihai Chira <mi...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 12:42
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
I hope so. But from what I remember (and I wasn't the main developer
dealing with this), the flex version of the project depended on
classes inside the non-flex version, which means that if the wrong
compiler argument was used, it would also replace the flex-SpellUI
with the non-flex-SpellUI. But again, things may have changed a lot
since then.
On 2 September 2014 11:38, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new
>> step to the release verification process to create a project without
>> Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex
>> project.
>
> I think this is just a matter of including the right swcs and not all of them?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Mihai Chira <mi...@gmail.com>.
I hope so. But from what I remember (and I wasn't the main developer
dealing with this), the flex version of the project depended on
classes inside the non-flex version, which means that if the wrong
compiler argument was used, it would also replace the flex-SpellUI
with the non-flex-SpellUI. But again, things may have changed a lot
since then.
On 2 September 2014 11:38, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new
>> step to the release verification process to create a project without
>> Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex
>> project.
>
> I think this is just a matter of including the right swcs and not all of them?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new
> step to the release verification process to create a project without
> Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex
> project.
I think this is just a matter of including the right swcs and not all of them?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Mihai Chira <mi...@gmail.com>.
I wanted to add two things related to squiggly, in order of importance:
1. (Sorry if I'm stating the obvious:) There are two versions of the
class SpellUI.as - one of flex projects and one for projects which
don't include the Flex framework. We had a big problem when we tried
to compile the project (using the ant script at the time - they were
exactly the versions donated by Adobe, I'm sure things changed since
then), because it used external-library-path instead of
include-libraries to compile, which meant that instead of keeping the
SpellUI for flex projects, which we needed, it kept the one for
projects without Flex. Using include-libraries fixed it.
Even if this is not a problem anymore, it might be worth adding a new
step to the release verification process to create a project without
Flex and make sure that squiggly works well, and the same for a Flex
project.
2. There is a memory leak in both version of SpellUI.as[1]. I won't
have time to fix it anytime soon, but in case anyone has some free
time on their hands, it could be useful to release without the leak.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34421
On 2 September 2014 02:29, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly indicates the permissive license for English.
>
> I really don't think you need to ask legal again but if you really feel you need to go ahead. We as a PMC should be able to decide, and in it's discovered later we've made a mistake we can correct it. Worse case it will be "fixed" in the next release anyway.
>
> We're talking about changes to a README (not LICENSE or NOTICE) for something that isn't even in the release. The user can download any dictionary they choose (which come under a variety of licenses) we have no control over that.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly indicates the permissive license for English.
I really don't think you need to ask legal again but if you really feel you need to go ahead. We as a PMC should be able to decide, and in it's discovered later we've made a mistake we can correct it. Worse case it will be "fixed" in the next release anyway.
We're talking about changes to a README (not LICENSE or NOTICE) for something that isn't even in the release. The user can download any dictionary they choose (which come under a variety of licenses) we have no control over that.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly indicates the permissive license for English.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
> The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
> http://hunspell.sourceforge.net.
And in your view is this a blocker and requires another release candidate or can we fix in the next release?
> 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package?
There is no requirement to put it in a separate package and most apache projects don't have separate zip for docs, http seems about the only exception and in it's case that makes sense you don't normally deploy docs about http server live. IMO With a library you do want the docs with the source so that people using the code know how to use it.
> I would have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
> results.
You can ignore them or pass a -e or -E option to rat.
> 2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
> binaries folder on dist?
Again there is no requirement to do that and it varies from project to project / release to release how the release area is organised.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
> http://hunspell.sourceforge.net.
And in your view is this a blocker and requires another release candidate or can we fix in the next release?
> 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package?
There is no requirement to put it in a separate package and most apache projects don't have separate zip for docs, http seems about the only exception and in it's case that makes sense you don't normally deploy docs about http server live. IMO With a library you do want the docs with the source so that people using the code know how to use it.
> I would have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
> results.
You can ignore them or pass a -e or -E option to rat.
> 2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
> binaries folder on dist?
Again there is no requirement to do that and it varies from project to project / release to release how the release area is organised.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
>> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson
>>is
>> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
>
>And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release
>candidate. Unless anyone has any other objections?
Squiggly has been legally cleared for take-off!
Now that we know it gets to fly solo, I have one concern, then some stuff
to consider:
The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net. The dictionaries at open office.org and
the dictionaries linked to at Hunspell's site seem to be LPGL versions for
English. How about we tweak the README by replacing:
You can obtain dictionary files from:
http://extensions.openoffice.org
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"
With:
You can obtain en_US and en_CA dictionaries under a BSD/MIT-like
license from:
http://wordlist.aspell.net/dicts/
You can obtain other dictionary files from:
http://wordlist.aspell.net/other-dicts/
http://extensions.openoffice.org
http://hunspell.sourceforge.net"
But note that many of these dictionaries are under LPGL licenses.
Then if we do another RC, I'm wondering:
1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package? I would
have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
results. I was expecting a separate zip in a doc folder on dist like we
do in the SDK. After all, it isn't really source?
2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
binaries folder on dist?
3) Could the README end with the same "thank you" we have in the SDK's
README?
Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy!
The Apache Flex Project
<http://flex.apache.org>
Other than that, I'm good to go. LICENSE and NOTICE and RELEASE_NOTES look
good and the build completed.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is
> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release candidate. Unless anyone has any other objections?
I also sent an email to Kevin (1/2 hour ago) and he replied confirming that it is BSD/MIT (like). Given that it is we could actually bundled it into a future release. Kevin has no objections if we do that.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is
considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
Should be over as soon as we get the ruling.
-Alex
On 9/1/14 12:14 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>This is another one for the (yet to be implemented)
>legal-discuss@flex.apache.org mailing list :-(
>
>Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible. Either agree
>to disagree and toss a coin, or ask someone who can break the tie to take
>a
>look, and move on, please.
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the
>> SCOWL
>> > dictionaries.
>>
>> No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all
>> dictionaries are based on word lists in the public domian and/or
>>licenses
>> unencumbered by rights that would be incompatable with Apache.
>>
>> But more importantly none are licenced under any licence listed in
>> Category X (GPL, NPL, BCL etc).
>>
>> I'll also note that we are not even bundling this dictionary and other
>> dictionaries exist that are also licensed by a license not in Category
>>X.
>>
>> Here is the copyright/licence for the complete list of things in the
>>SCOWL
>> package, the english dictionary uses a subset of these licences.
>>
>> Again I see no licences that are incompatible and there are no Category
>>X
>> licences.
>>
>> The collective work is Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson as well
>> as any of the copyrights mentioned below:
>>
>> Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson
>>
>> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
>> lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
>> and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
>> provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
>> that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
>> supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
>> about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
>> "as is" without express or implied warranty.
>>
>> Alan Beale <bi...@pobox.com> also deserves special credit as he has,
>> in addition to providing the 12Dicts package and being a major
>> contributor to the ENABLE word list, given me an incredible amount of
>> feedback and created a number of special lists (those found in the
>> Supplement) in order to help improve the overall quality of SCOWL.
>>
>> The 10 level includes the 1000 most common English words (according to
>> the Moby (TM) Words II [MWords] package), a subset of the 1000 most
>> common words on the Internet (again, according to Moby Words II), and
>> frequently class 16 from Brian Kelk's "UK English Wordlist
>> with Frequency Classification".
>>
>> The MWords package was explicitly placed in the public domain:
>>
>> The Moby lexicon project is complete and has
>> been place into the public domain. Use, sell,
>> rework, excerpt and use in any way on any platform.
>>
>> Placing this material on internal or public servers is
>> also encouraged. The compiler is not aware of any
>> export restrictions so freely distribute world-wide.
>>
>> You can verify the public domain status by contacting
>>
>> Grady Ward
>> 3449 Martha Ct.
>> Arcata, CA 95521-4884
>>
>> grady@netcom.com
>> grady@northcoast.com
>>
>> The "UK English Wordlist With Frequency Classification" is also in the
>> Public Domain:
>>
>> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 20:27:21 +0100
>> From: Brian Kelk <Br...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>
>> > I was wondering what the copyright status of your "UK English
>> > Wordlist With Frequency Classification" word list as it seems to
>> > be lacking any copyright notice.
>>
>> There were many many sources in total, but any text marked
>> "copyright" was avoided. Locally-written documentation was one
>> source. An earlier version of the list resided in a filespace called
>> PUBLIC on the University mainframe, because it was considered public
>> domain.
>>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:31:34 +0100
>>
>> > So are you saying your word list is also in the public domain?
>>
>> That is the intention.
>>
>> The 20 level includes frequency classes 7-15 from Brian's word list.
>>
>> The 35 level includes frequency classes 2-6 and words appearing in at
>> least 11 of 12 dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts package. All
>> words from the 12Dicts package have had likely inflections added via
>> my inflection database.
>>
>> The 12Dicts package and Supplement is in the Public Domain.
>>
>> The WordNet database, which was used in the creation of the
>> Inflections database, is under the following copyright:
>>
>> This software and database is being provided to you, the LICENSEE,
>> by Princeton University under the following license. By obtaining,
>> using and/or copying this software and database, you agree that you
>> have read, understood, and will comply with these terms and
>> conditions.:
>>
>> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
>> database and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or
>> royalty is hereby granted, provided that you agree to comply with
>> the following copyright notice and statements, including the
>> disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the software,
>> database and documentation, including modifications that you make
>> for internal use or for distribution.
>>
>> WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University. All rights
>> reserved.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PRINCETON
>> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
>> IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON
>> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
>> ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE
>> LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
>> THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
>>
>> The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in
>> advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
>> and/or database. Title to copyright in this software, database and
>> any associated documentation shall at all times remain with
>> Princeton University and LICENSEE agrees to preserve same.
>>
>> The 40 level includes words from Alan's 3esl list found in version 4.0
>> of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 3esl list is also in
>>the
>> public domain.
>>
>> The 50 level includes Brian's frequency class 1, words appearing
>> in at least 5 of 12 of the dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts
>> package, and uppercase words in at least 4 of the previous 12
>> dictionaries. A decent number of proper names is also included: The
>> top 1000 male, female, and Last names from the 1990 Census report; a
>> list of names sent to me by Alan Beale; and a few names that I added
>> myself. Finally a small list of abbreviations not commonly found in
>> other word lists is included.
>>
>> The name files form the Census report is a government document which I
>> don't think can be copyrighted.
>>
>> The file special-jargon.50 uses common.lst and word.lst from the
>> "Unofficial Jargon File Word Lists" which is derived from "The Jargon
>> File". All of which is in the Public Domain. This file also contain
>> a few extra UNIX terms which are found in the file "unix-terms" in the
>> special/ directory.
>>
>> The 55 level includes words from Alan's 2of4brif list found in version
>> 4.0 of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 2of4brif is also
>> in the public domain.
>>
>> The 60 level includes all words appearing in at least 2 of the 12
>> dictionaries as indicated by the 12Dicts package.
>>
>> The 70 level includes Brian's frequency class 0 and the 74,550 common
>> dictionary words from the MWords package. The common dictionary words,
>> like those from the 12Dicts package, have had all likely inflections
>> added. The 70 level also included the 5desk list from version 4.0 of
>> the 12Dics package which is in the public domain.
>>
>> The 80 level includes the ENABLE word list, all the lists in the
>> ENABLE supplement package (except for ABLE), the "UK Advanced Cryptics
>> Dictionary" (UKACD), the list of signature words from the YAWL package,
>> and the 10,196 places list from the MWords package.
>>
>> The ENABLE package, mainted by M\Cooper <th...@theriver.com>,
>> is in the Public Domain:
>>
>> The ENABLE master word list, WORD.LST, is herewith formally released
>> into the Public Domain. Anyone is free to use it or distribute it in
>> any manner they see fit. No fee or registration is required for its
>> use nor are "contributions" solicited (if you feel you absolutely
>> must contribute something for your own peace of mind, the authors of
>> the ENABLE list ask that you make a donation on their behalf to your
>> favorite charity). This word list is our gift to the Scrabble
>> community, as an alternate to "official" word lists. Game designers
>> may feel free to incorporate the WORD.LST into their games. Please
>> mention the source and credit us as originators of the list. Note
>> that if you, as a game designer, use the WORD.LST in your product,
>> you may still copyright and protect your product, but you may *not*
>> legally copyright or in any way restrict redistribution of the
>> WORD.LST portion of your product. This *may* under law restrict your
>> rights to restrict your users' rights, but that is only fair.
>>
>> UKACD, by J Ross Beresford <ro...@bryson.demon.co.uk>, is under the
>> following copyright:
>>
>> Copyright (c) J Ross Beresford 1993-1999. All Rights Reserved.
>>
>> The following restriction is placed on the use of this publication:
>> if The UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary is used in a software package
>> or redistributed in any form, the copyright notice must be
>> prominently displayed and the text of this document must be included
>> verbatim.
>>
>> There are no other restrictions: I would like to see the list
>> distributed as widely as possible.
>>
>> The 95 level includes the 354,984 single words, 256,772 compound
>> words, 4,946 female names and the 3,897 male names, and 21,986 names
>> from the MWords package, ABLE.LST from the ENABLE Supplement, and some
>> additional words found in my part-of-speech database that were not
>> found anywhere else.
>>
>> Accent information was taken from UKACD.
>>
>> My VARCON package was used to create the American, British, and
>> Canadian word list.
>>
>> Since the original word lists used in the VARCON package came
>> from the Ispell distribution they are under the Ispell copyright:
>>
>> Copyright 1993, Geoff Kuenning, Granada Hills, CA
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> are met:
>>
>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>>distribution.
>> 3. All modifications to the source code must be clearly marked as
>> such. Binary redistributions based on modified source code
>> must be clearly marked as modified versions in the documentation
>> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>> (clause 4 removed with permission from Geoff Kuenning)
>> 5. The name of Geoff Kuenning may not be used to endorse or promote
>> products derived from this software without specific prior
>> written permission.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY GEOFF KUENNING AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
>> IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
>> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL GEOFF
>> KUENNING OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
>> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
>> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
>> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
>> LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
>> ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
>> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>
>> The variant word lists were created from a list of variants found in
>> the 12dicts supplement package as well as a list of variants I created
>> myself.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
This is another one for the (yet to be implemented)
legal-discuss@flex.apache.org mailing list :-(
Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible. Either agree
to disagree and toss a coin, or ask someone who can break the tie to take a
look, and move on, please.
EdB
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the
> SCOWL
> > dictionaries.
>
> No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all
> dictionaries are based on word lists in the public domian and/or licenses
> unencumbered by rights that would be incompatable with Apache.
>
> But more importantly none are licenced under any licence listed in
> Category X (GPL, NPL, BCL etc).
>
> I'll also note that we are not even bundling this dictionary and other
> dictionaries exist that are also licensed by a license not in Category X.
>
> Here is the copyright/licence for the complete list of things in the SCOWL
> package, the english dictionary uses a subset of these licences.
>
> Again I see no licences that are incompatible and there are no Category X
> licences.
>
> The collective work is Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson as well
> as any of the copyrights mentioned below:
>
> Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
> lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
> and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
> provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
> that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
> about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
> "as is" without express or implied warranty.
>
> Alan Beale <bi...@pobox.com> also deserves special credit as he has,
> in addition to providing the 12Dicts package and being a major
> contributor to the ENABLE word list, given me an incredible amount of
> feedback and created a number of special lists (those found in the
> Supplement) in order to help improve the overall quality of SCOWL.
>
> The 10 level includes the 1000 most common English words (according to
> the Moby (TM) Words II [MWords] package), a subset of the 1000 most
> common words on the Internet (again, according to Moby Words II), and
> frequently class 16 from Brian Kelk's "UK English Wordlist
> with Frequency Classification".
>
> The MWords package was explicitly placed in the public domain:
>
> The Moby lexicon project is complete and has
> been place into the public domain. Use, sell,
> rework, excerpt and use in any way on any platform.
>
> Placing this material on internal or public servers is
> also encouraged. The compiler is not aware of any
> export restrictions so freely distribute world-wide.
>
> You can verify the public domain status by contacting
>
> Grady Ward
> 3449 Martha Ct.
> Arcata, CA 95521-4884
>
> grady@netcom.com
> grady@northcoast.com
>
> The "UK English Wordlist With Frequency Classification" is also in the
> Public Domain:
>
> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 20:27:21 +0100
> From: Brian Kelk <Br...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
>
> > I was wondering what the copyright status of your "UK English
> > Wordlist With Frequency Classification" word list as it seems to
> > be lacking any copyright notice.
>
> There were many many sources in total, but any text marked
> "copyright" was avoided. Locally-written documentation was one
> source. An earlier version of the list resided in a filespace called
> PUBLIC on the University mainframe, because it was considered public
> domain.
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:31:34 +0100
>
> > So are you saying your word list is also in the public domain?
>
> That is the intention.
>
> The 20 level includes frequency classes 7-15 from Brian's word list.
>
> The 35 level includes frequency classes 2-6 and words appearing in at
> least 11 of 12 dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts package. All
> words from the 12Dicts package have had likely inflections added via
> my inflection database.
>
> The 12Dicts package and Supplement is in the Public Domain.
>
> The WordNet database, which was used in the creation of the
> Inflections database, is under the following copyright:
>
> This software and database is being provided to you, the LICENSEE,
> by Princeton University under the following license. By obtaining,
> using and/or copying this software and database, you agree that you
> have read, understood, and will comply with these terms and
> conditions.:
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
> database and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or
> royalty is hereby granted, provided that you agree to comply with
> the following copyright notice and statements, including the
> disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the software,
> database and documentation, including modifications that you make
> for internal use or for distribution.
>
> WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University. All rights
> reserved.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PRINCETON
> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON
> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
> ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE
> LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
> THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
>
> The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in
> advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
> and/or database. Title to copyright in this software, database and
> any associated documentation shall at all times remain with
> Princeton University and LICENSEE agrees to preserve same.
>
> The 40 level includes words from Alan's 3esl list found in version 4.0
> of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 3esl list is also in the
> public domain.
>
> The 50 level includes Brian's frequency class 1, words appearing
> in at least 5 of 12 of the dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts
> package, and uppercase words in at least 4 of the previous 12
> dictionaries. A decent number of proper names is also included: The
> top 1000 male, female, and Last names from the 1990 Census report; a
> list of names sent to me by Alan Beale; and a few names that I added
> myself. Finally a small list of abbreviations not commonly found in
> other word lists is included.
>
> The name files form the Census report is a government document which I
> don't think can be copyrighted.
>
> The file special-jargon.50 uses common.lst and word.lst from the
> "Unofficial Jargon File Word Lists" which is derived from "The Jargon
> File". All of which is in the Public Domain. This file also contain
> a few extra UNIX terms which are found in the file "unix-terms" in the
> special/ directory.
>
> The 55 level includes words from Alan's 2of4brif list found in version
> 4.0 of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 2of4brif is also
> in the public domain.
>
> The 60 level includes all words appearing in at least 2 of the 12
> dictionaries as indicated by the 12Dicts package.
>
> The 70 level includes Brian's frequency class 0 and the 74,550 common
> dictionary words from the MWords package. The common dictionary words,
> like those from the 12Dicts package, have had all likely inflections
> added. The 70 level also included the 5desk list from version 4.0 of
> the 12Dics package which is in the public domain.
>
> The 80 level includes the ENABLE word list, all the lists in the
> ENABLE supplement package (except for ABLE), the "UK Advanced Cryptics
> Dictionary" (UKACD), the list of signature words from the YAWL package,
> and the 10,196 places list from the MWords package.
>
> The ENABLE package, mainted by M\Cooper <th...@theriver.com>,
> is in the Public Domain:
>
> The ENABLE master word list, WORD.LST, is herewith formally released
> into the Public Domain. Anyone is free to use it or distribute it in
> any manner they see fit. No fee or registration is required for its
> use nor are "contributions" solicited (if you feel you absolutely
> must contribute something for your own peace of mind, the authors of
> the ENABLE list ask that you make a donation on their behalf to your
> favorite charity). This word list is our gift to the Scrabble
> community, as an alternate to "official" word lists. Game designers
> may feel free to incorporate the WORD.LST into their games. Please
> mention the source and credit us as originators of the list. Note
> that if you, as a game designer, use the WORD.LST in your product,
> you may still copyright and protect your product, but you may *not*
> legally copyright or in any way restrict redistribution of the
> WORD.LST portion of your product. This *may* under law restrict your
> rights to restrict your users' rights, but that is only fair.
>
> UKACD, by J Ross Beresford <ro...@bryson.demon.co.uk>, is under the
> following copyright:
>
> Copyright (c) J Ross Beresford 1993-1999. All Rights Reserved.
>
> The following restriction is placed on the use of this publication:
> if The UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary is used in a software package
> or redistributed in any form, the copyright notice must be
> prominently displayed and the text of this document must be included
> verbatim.
>
> There are no other restrictions: I would like to see the list
> distributed as widely as possible.
>
> The 95 level includes the 354,984 single words, 256,772 compound
> words, 4,946 female names and the 3,897 male names, and 21,986 names
> from the MWords package, ABLE.LST from the ENABLE Supplement, and some
> additional words found in my part-of-speech database that were not
> found anywhere else.
>
> Accent information was taken from UKACD.
>
> My VARCON package was used to create the American, British, and
> Canadian word list.
>
> Since the original word lists used in the VARCON package came
> from the Ispell distribution they are under the Ispell copyright:
>
> Copyright 1993, Geoff Kuenning, Granada Hills, CA
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 3. All modifications to the source code must be clearly marked as
> such. Binary redistributions based on modified source code
> must be clearly marked as modified versions in the documentation
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> (clause 4 removed with permission from Geoff Kuenning)
> 5. The name of Geoff Kuenning may not be used to endorse or promote
> products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY GEOFF KUENNING AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
> IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL GEOFF
> KUENNING OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
> ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> The variant word lists were created from a list of variants found in
> the 12dicts supplement package as well as a list of variants I created
> myself.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
It's all very confusing to me. It isn't my call. I have asked for a
ruling from legal-discuss. It is odd that other products like AOO haven't
switched to this dictionary.
Once they give us the green light, we'll be all set.
-Alex
On 9/1/14 12:04 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the
>>SCOWL
>> dictionaries.
>
>No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all
>dictionaries are based on word lists in the public domian and/or licenses
>unencumbered by rights that would be incompatable with Apache.
>
>But more importantly none are licenced under any licence listed in
>Category X (GPL, NPL, BCL etc).
>
>I'll also note that we are not even bundling this dictionary and other
>dictionaries exist that are also licensed by a license not in Category X.
>
>Here is the copyright/licence for the complete list of things in the
>SCOWL package, the english dictionary uses a subset of these licences.
>
>Again I see no licences that are incompatible and there are no Category X
>licences.
>
>The collective work is Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson as well
>as any of the copyrights mentioned below:
>
> Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
> lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
> and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
> provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
> that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
> about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
> "as is" without express or implied warranty.
>
>Alan Beale <bi...@pobox.com> also deserves special credit as he has,
>in addition to providing the 12Dicts package and being a major
>contributor to the ENABLE word list, given me an incredible amount of
>feedback and created a number of special lists (those found in the
>Supplement) in order to help improve the overall quality of SCOWL.
>
>The 10 level includes the 1000 most common English words (according to
>the Moby (TM) Words II [MWords] package), a subset of the 1000 most
>common words on the Internet (again, according to Moby Words II), and
>frequently class 16 from Brian Kelk's "UK English Wordlist
>with Frequency Classification".
>
>The MWords package was explicitly placed in the public domain:
>
> The Moby lexicon project is complete and has
> been place into the public domain. Use, sell,
> rework, excerpt and use in any way on any platform.
>
> Placing this material on internal or public servers is
> also encouraged. The compiler is not aware of any
> export restrictions so freely distribute world-wide.
>
> You can verify the public domain status by contacting
>
> Grady Ward
> 3449 Martha Ct.
> Arcata, CA 95521-4884
>
> grady@netcom.com
> grady@northcoast.com
>
>The "UK English Wordlist With Frequency Classification" is also in the
>Public Domain:
>
> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 20:27:21 +0100
> From: Brian Kelk <Br...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
>
> > I was wondering what the copyright status of your "UK English
> > Wordlist With Frequency Classification" word list as it seems to
> > be lacking any copyright notice.
>
> There were many many sources in total, but any text marked
> "copyright" was avoided. Locally-written documentation was one
> source. An earlier version of the list resided in a filespace called
> PUBLIC on the University mainframe, because it was considered public
> domain.
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:31:34 +0100
>
> > So are you saying your word list is also in the public domain?
>
> That is the intention.
>
>The 20 level includes frequency classes 7-15 from Brian's word list.
>
>The 35 level includes frequency classes 2-6 and words appearing in at
>least 11 of 12 dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts package. All
>words from the 12Dicts package have had likely inflections added via
>my inflection database.
>
>The 12Dicts package and Supplement is in the Public Domain.
>
>The WordNet database, which was used in the creation of the
>Inflections database, is under the following copyright:
>
> This software and database is being provided to you, the LICENSEE,
> by Princeton University under the following license. By obtaining,
> using and/or copying this software and database, you agree that you
> have read, understood, and will comply with these terms and
> conditions.:
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
> database and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or
> royalty is hereby granted, provided that you agree to comply with
> the following copyright notice and statements, including the
> disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the software,
> database and documentation, including modifications that you make
> for internal use or for distribution.
>
> WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University. All rights
> reserved.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PRINCETON
> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON
> UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
> ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE
> LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
> THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
>
> The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in
> advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
> and/or database. Title to copyright in this software, database and
> any associated documentation shall at all times remain with
> Princeton University and LICENSEE agrees to preserve same.
>
>The 40 level includes words from Alan's 3esl list found in version 4.0
>of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 3esl list is also in the
>public domain.
>
>The 50 level includes Brian's frequency class 1, words appearing
>in at least 5 of 12 of the dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts
>package, and uppercase words in at least 4 of the previous 12
>dictionaries. A decent number of proper names is also included: The
>top 1000 male, female, and Last names from the 1990 Census report; a
>list of names sent to me by Alan Beale; and a few names that I added
>myself. Finally a small list of abbreviations not commonly found in
>other word lists is included.
>
>The name files form the Census report is a government document which I
>don't think can be copyrighted.
>
>The file special-jargon.50 uses common.lst and word.lst from the
>"Unofficial Jargon File Word Lists" which is derived from "The Jargon
>File". All of which is in the Public Domain. This file also contain
>a few extra UNIX terms which are found in the file "unix-terms" in the
>special/ directory.
>
>The 55 level includes words from Alan's 2of4brif list found in version
>4.0 of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 2of4brif is also
>in the public domain.
>
>The 60 level includes all words appearing in at least 2 of the 12
>dictionaries as indicated by the 12Dicts package.
>
>The 70 level includes Brian's frequency class 0 and the 74,550 common
>dictionary words from the MWords package. The common dictionary words,
>like those from the 12Dicts package, have had all likely inflections
>added. The 70 level also included the 5desk list from version 4.0 of
>the 12Dics package which is in the public domain.
>
>The 80 level includes the ENABLE word list, all the lists in the
>ENABLE supplement package (except for ABLE), the "UK Advanced Cryptics
>Dictionary" (UKACD), the list of signature words from the YAWL package,
>and the 10,196 places list from the MWords package.
>
>The ENABLE package, mainted by M\Cooper <th...@theriver.com>,
>is in the Public Domain:
>
> The ENABLE master word list, WORD.LST, is herewith formally released
> into the Public Domain. Anyone is free to use it or distribute it in
> any manner they see fit. No fee or registration is required for its
> use nor are "contributions" solicited (if you feel you absolutely
> must contribute something for your own peace of mind, the authors of
> the ENABLE list ask that you make a donation on their behalf to your
> favorite charity). This word list is our gift to the Scrabble
> community, as an alternate to "official" word lists. Game designers
> may feel free to incorporate the WORD.LST into their games. Please
> mention the source and credit us as originators of the list. Note
> that if you, as a game designer, use the WORD.LST in your product,
> you may still copyright and protect your product, but you may *not*
> legally copyright or in any way restrict redistribution of the
> WORD.LST portion of your product. This *may* under law restrict your
> rights to restrict your users' rights, but that is only fair.
>
>UKACD, by J Ross Beresford <ro...@bryson.demon.co.uk>, is under the
>following copyright:
>
> Copyright (c) J Ross Beresford 1993-1999. All Rights Reserved.
>
> The following restriction is placed on the use of this publication:
> if The UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary is used in a software package
> or redistributed in any form, the copyright notice must be
> prominently displayed and the text of this document must be included
> verbatim.
>
> There are no other restrictions: I would like to see the list
> distributed as widely as possible.
>
>The 95 level includes the 354,984 single words, 256,772 compound
>words, 4,946 female names and the 3,897 male names, and 21,986 names
>from the MWords package, ABLE.LST from the ENABLE Supplement, and some
>additional words found in my part-of-speech database that were not
>found anywhere else.
>
>Accent information was taken from UKACD.
>
>My VARCON package was used to create the American, British, and
>Canadian word list.
>
>Since the original word lists used in the VARCON package came
>from the Ispell distribution they are under the Ispell copyright:
>
> Copyright 1993, Geoff Kuenning, Granada Hills, CA
> All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 3. All modifications to the source code must be clearly marked as
> such. Binary redistributions based on modified source code
> must be clearly marked as modified versions in the documentation
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> (clause 4 removed with permission from Geoff Kuenning)
> 5. The name of Geoff Kuenning may not be used to endorse or promote
> products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY GEOFF KUENNING AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
> IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL GEOFF
> KUENNING OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
> ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>The variant word lists were created from a list of variants found in
>the 12dicts supplement package as well as a list of variants I created
>myself.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the SCOWL
> dictionaries.
No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all dictionaries are based on word lists in the public domian and/or licenses unencumbered by rights that would be incompatable with Apache.
But more importantly none are licenced under any licence listed in Category X (GPL, NPL, BCL etc).
I'll also note that we are not even bundling this dictionary and other dictionaries exist that are also licensed by a license not in Category X.
Here is the copyright/licence for the complete list of things in the SCOWL package, the english dictionary uses a subset of these licences.
Again I see no licences that are incompatible and there are no Category X licences.
The collective work is Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson as well
as any of the copyrights mentioned below:
Copyright 2000-2014 by Kevin Atkinson
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
"as is" without express or implied warranty.
Alan Beale <bi...@pobox.com> also deserves special credit as he has,
in addition to providing the 12Dicts package and being a major
contributor to the ENABLE word list, given me an incredible amount of
feedback and created a number of special lists (those found in the
Supplement) in order to help improve the overall quality of SCOWL.
The 10 level includes the 1000 most common English words (according to
the Moby (TM) Words II [MWords] package), a subset of the 1000 most
common words on the Internet (again, according to Moby Words II), and
frequently class 16 from Brian Kelk's "UK English Wordlist
with Frequency Classification".
The MWords package was explicitly placed in the public domain:
The Moby lexicon project is complete and has
been place into the public domain. Use, sell,
rework, excerpt and use in any way on any platform.
Placing this material on internal or public servers is
also encouraged. The compiler is not aware of any
export restrictions so freely distribute world-wide.
You can verify the public domain status by contacting
Grady Ward
3449 Martha Ct.
Arcata, CA 95521-4884
grady@netcom.com
grady@northcoast.com
The "UK English Wordlist With Frequency Classification" is also in the
Public Domain:
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 20:27:21 +0100
From: Brian Kelk <Br...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
> I was wondering what the copyright status of your "UK English
> Wordlist With Frequency Classification" word list as it seems to
> be lacking any copyright notice.
There were many many sources in total, but any text marked
"copyright" was avoided. Locally-written documentation was one
source. An earlier version of the list resided in a filespace called
PUBLIC on the University mainframe, because it was considered public
domain.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:31:34 +0100
> So are you saying your word list is also in the public domain?
That is the intention.
The 20 level includes frequency classes 7-15 from Brian's word list.
The 35 level includes frequency classes 2-6 and words appearing in at
least 11 of 12 dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts package. All
words from the 12Dicts package have had likely inflections added via
my inflection database.
The 12Dicts package and Supplement is in the Public Domain.
The WordNet database, which was used in the creation of the
Inflections database, is under the following copyright:
This software and database is being provided to you, the LICENSEE,
by Princeton University under the following license. By obtaining,
using and/or copying this software and database, you agree that you
have read, understood, and will comply with these terms and
conditions.:
Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and
database and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or
royalty is hereby granted, provided that you agree to comply with
the following copyright notice and statements, including the
disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the software,
database and documentation, including modifications that you make
for internal use or for distribution.
WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University. All rights
reserved.
THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-
ABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE
LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
and/or database. Title to copyright in this software, database and
any associated documentation shall at all times remain with
Princeton University and LICENSEE agrees to preserve same.
The 40 level includes words from Alan's 3esl list found in version 4.0
of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 3esl list is also in the
public domain.
The 50 level includes Brian's frequency class 1, words appearing
in at least 5 of 12 of the dictionaries as indicated in the 12Dicts
package, and uppercase words in at least 4 of the previous 12
dictionaries. A decent number of proper names is also included: The
top 1000 male, female, and Last names from the 1990 Census report; a
list of names sent to me by Alan Beale; and a few names that I added
myself. Finally a small list of abbreviations not commonly found in
other word lists is included.
The name files form the Census report is a government document which I
don't think can be copyrighted.
The file special-jargon.50 uses common.lst and word.lst from the
"Unofficial Jargon File Word Lists" which is derived from "The Jargon
File". All of which is in the Public Domain. This file also contain
a few extra UNIX terms which are found in the file "unix-terms" in the
special/ directory.
The 55 level includes words from Alan's 2of4brif list found in version
4.0 of his 12dicts package. Like his other stuff the 2of4brif is also
in the public domain.
The 60 level includes all words appearing in at least 2 of the 12
dictionaries as indicated by the 12Dicts package.
The 70 level includes Brian's frequency class 0 and the 74,550 common
dictionary words from the MWords package. The common dictionary words,
like those from the 12Dicts package, have had all likely inflections
added. The 70 level also included the 5desk list from version 4.0 of
the 12Dics package which is in the public domain.
The 80 level includes the ENABLE word list, all the lists in the
ENABLE supplement package (except for ABLE), the "UK Advanced Cryptics
Dictionary" (UKACD), the list of signature words from the YAWL package,
and the 10,196 places list from the MWords package.
The ENABLE package, mainted by M\Cooper <th...@theriver.com>,
is in the Public Domain:
The ENABLE master word list, WORD.LST, is herewith formally released
into the Public Domain. Anyone is free to use it or distribute it in
any manner they see fit. No fee or registration is required for its
use nor are "contributions" solicited (if you feel you absolutely
must contribute something for your own peace of mind, the authors of
the ENABLE list ask that you make a donation on their behalf to your
favorite charity). This word list is our gift to the Scrabble
community, as an alternate to "official" word lists. Game designers
may feel free to incorporate the WORD.LST into their games. Please
mention the source and credit us as originators of the list. Note
that if you, as a game designer, use the WORD.LST in your product,
you may still copyright and protect your product, but you may *not*
legally copyright or in any way restrict redistribution of the
WORD.LST portion of your product. This *may* under law restrict your
rights to restrict your users' rights, but that is only fair.
UKACD, by J Ross Beresford <ro...@bryson.demon.co.uk>, is under the
following copyright:
Copyright (c) J Ross Beresford 1993-1999. All Rights Reserved.
The following restriction is placed on the use of this publication:
if The UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary is used in a software package
or redistributed in any form, the copyright notice must be
prominently displayed and the text of this document must be included
verbatim.
There are no other restrictions: I would like to see the list
distributed as widely as possible.
The 95 level includes the 354,984 single words, 256,772 compound
words, 4,946 female names and the 3,897 male names, and 21,986 names
from the MWords package, ABLE.LST from the ENABLE Supplement, and some
additional words found in my part-of-speech database that were not
found anywhere else.
Accent information was taken from UKACD.
My VARCON package was used to create the American, British, and
Canadian word list.
Since the original word lists used in the VARCON package came
from the Ispell distribution they are under the Ispell copyright:
Copyright 1993, Geoff Kuenning, Granada Hills, CA
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All modifications to the source code must be clearly marked as
such. Binary redistributions based on modified source code
must be clearly marked as modified versions in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
(clause 4 removed with permission from Geoff Kuenning)
5. The name of Geoff Kuenning may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY GEOFF KUENNING AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS
IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL GEOFF
KUENNING OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The variant word lists were created from a list of variants found in
the 12dicts supplement package as well as a list of variants I created
myself.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/31/14 11:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So given that the two objections you just raised we already comply with
>(ie That not all dictionaries out there are Category X and we do know of
>an English dictionary with an Apache compatible license) can we move
>forward now?
To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the SCOWL
dictionaries. I'll put the details in the legal-discuss thread.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
So given that the two objections you just raised we already comply with (ie That not all dictionaries out there are Category X and we do know of an English dictionary with an Apache compatible license) can we move forward now?
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
It still isn't clear to me. I asked for more clarification. Here are two
parts of the last reply on legal-discuss:
"If you want just a spell-checker package, then that is fine. You just
can't produce something that requires Category X (whether build or run
time)."
First he says we can have a package, but then says we can't if it requires
Category X, which for practical purposes, this RC does.
"Justin: to answer your question: I would expect the English spell-checker
to be available under ASF/permissive licensing. The primary language of
the product community is English, and so I would expect that to be
available. If not... then it doesn't seem like a permissively-licensed
project."
I don't think this is the case, so I think he's saying we can't release it
unless we could find or create an english dictionary that isn't category X.
-Alex
On 8/31/14 10:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So given the reply on legal would now agree we can release as a separate
>package and we can move forward with the vote on the RC?
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
So given the reply on legal would now agree we can release as a separate package and we can move forward with the vote on the RC?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I guess we see it differently. The two answers we got seemed to conflict.
I've asked for clarification on legal-discuss.
On 8/31/14 9:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot.
>
>My understanding is that we can.
>
>Given other projects have done similar things with Hunspell lets move
>forward with the release and if and when Legal come back with a clear
>decision we can (if required) fix any issues they identify. We are not
>including any LGPL code or are we forcing users to download LGPL code.
>
>> We have to bundle the code in some other release like the Flex SDK
>>where it
>> Squiggly's capabilities can be seen as an optional feature.
>
>Squiggky is an optional feature and we can release it on it own. I see no
>need to complicate matters and package it in the SDK and in fact that may
>cause other (legal and otherwise) issues.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot.
My understanding is that we can.
Given other projects have done similar things with Hunspell lets move forward with the release and if and when Legal come back with a clear decision we can (if required) fix any issues they identify. We are not including any LGPL code or are we forcing users to download LGPL code.
> We have to bundle the code in some other release like the Flex SDK where it
> Squiggly's capabilities can be seen as an optional feature.
Squiggky is an optional feature and we can release it on it own. I see no need to complicate matters and package it in the SDK and in fact that may cause other (legal and otherwise) issues.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I guess I don't understand. You think the PMC should vote to approve a
release that only contains Squiggly?
My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot. We have
to bundle the code in some other release like the Flex SDK where it
Squiggly's capabilities can be seen as an optional feature.
I will ask for verification on legal-discuss.
-Alex
On 8/31/14 3:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not
>>a
>> separate file in the release artifact.
>
>It generated from the source and is in the release.
>
>> IMO, we can link to link AOO
>
>Which is exactly what we are doing in the RC.
>
>> Remember that the Flex SDK already has a category X dependency for the
>> optional embedded font jars. The code that calls the category X jars is
>> bundled in the one and only release artifact, but the code is set up
>>such
>> that those category X jars can be missing.
>
>Which is exactly what the Squiggly release candidate is doing ie you can
>compile it even if the dictionary files are missing.
>
>> The mentors ruled that was sufficient because nobody "must" download
>>the category X jars to
>> successfully use the Flex SDK.
>
>And the Squiggly release candidate doesn't force you to to download any
>category X jars (or in this case LGPL data). So again we are in
>compliance..
>
>> I would expect we would do the same for Squiggly.
>
>We are.
>
>> But if you want, we can ask on the legal-discuss thread.
>
>There is nothing that needs to be asked as the matter is resolved. Alex
>if you think it's not please put it to a VOTE.
>
>If and when legal come up with a clear response we'll abide by that and
>change if required how Squiggly is packackaged, or make it download LGPL
>code.
>
>And can people please take a look at the RC to see if there are any other
>issues we need to fix up.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin