You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch> on 2003/02/13 22:02:39 UTC
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns (was: HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese hyphenation file update)
I'd say we can't keep something like that within our codebase because it
contradicts the Apache licence. It is entirely possible that someone
sells a product that uses FOP. That wouldn't violate the Apache licence
but the licence of this hyphenation file. Recent discussions on various
Apache mailing lists show that we shouldn't include anything in our
codebase that uses a licence that is not officially approved.
I wasn't aware that the hyphenation patterns had their own licences. So,
the obvious conclusion is that we need to check every one of these files
and remove the ones that are not compatible with the Apache licence.
That includes checking where the files came from.
Just for reference: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
On 13.02.2003 21:07:14 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> jaccoud@petrobras.com.br wrote:
> > I posted a correction for a bug in HyphenationTree.java and an updated
> > Portuguese hyphenation file some time ago (June 2002). Since I cannot be a
> > direct developer (my company firewall prevents me from using CVS), someone
> > (sorry, I do not remember who) took upon himself the job of modifying the
> > source and updating the hyphenation file.
>
> IT was probably committed to HEAD only. I've applied the patch
> to HyphenationTree.java.
>
> There is a small problem in pt.xml:
> ) Permission is hereby granted to copy and distribute this material provided
> that the
> ) copies are not made or distributed for commercial or lucrative purpose, and that
> ) the contents are not changed in any way.
>
> Oddly enough, the replaced file has a similar license.
> Keiron, Arved: is this allowed in the repository? Recently they
> stomped on LGPS on infrastructure, but this seems to be even
> more restrictive?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> You could be right about apply the Apache licence. Does everbody agree
> in this case?
Unless the old license somehow prevents it, we can choose any
license we like for any Derived Work we can claim copyright for
(golly... "though shalt not and a sentence with a preposition,
lest they think you come from Texas..." :-)
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 19.02.2003 17:56:27 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > > I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat
> > (the relevant
> > > files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> > > these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject
> > to Knuth's
> > > license, which IMO is Apache-compatible. It seems like the best
> > approach is
> > > to start with these, & let contributors modify them as necessary. They
> > > contain "do not change" caveats from Knuth, but after reading
> > his various
> > > papers on the subject, IMO, the purpose of this is to maintain TeX
> > > compatibility among diverse systems. People are free to take
> > his work as a
> > > starting place, but you cannot use the name "TeX".
> >
> > I've tried to locate the sources you mentioned on the net, but haven't
> > succeeded. Can you give us a URL?
>
> I don't know where they are on the net, but I'll be happy to email them to
> you. Or, if you have a Red Hat distribution, you might be able to find them
> there.
Would you email them to me? Thanks!
> > > Also, if we build our own, we should credit Knuth & TeX, but
> > also explicitly
> > > reference the Apache license in the files, so that contributors
> > know they
> > > are contributing under that license.
> >
> > Well, that depends on the licence. We cannot just simply credit Knuth &
> > TeX and apply the Apache licence. Jörg's analysis of the situation is
> > pretty accurate IMO. This is a non-trivial matter.
>
> Maybe I missed something in Joerg's analysis, or maybe I forgot to summarize
> the Knuth/TeX license. Essentially, it is this: "Use this software for
> anything that you wish, but don't modify it and call it TeX". In other
> words, Knuth retains control over TeX, but has no objection to anyone taking
> that code & starting another project with it -- he just doesn't want any
> confusion over what is TeX. I agree that it is a non-trivial matter, and
> that we need to respect everyone's rights, so if I have misunderstood
> something, please set me straight. Otherwise, I think we really can simply
> apply the Apache license to that work. The credits are simple courtesy. I
> just think it is better to start with something that works, even if
> incomplete, and have contributors add to it to make it complete, than to try
> to mess with the other licenses.
It's ok. I thought there would be more than this single sentence
attached to the sources. I just wanted to check on the original licence.
You could be right about apply the Apache licence. Does everbody agree
in this case?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat
> (the relevant
> > files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> > these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject
> to Knuth's
> > license, which IMO is Apache-compatible. It seems like the best
> approach is
> > to start with these, & let contributors modify them as necessary. They
> > contain "do not change" caveats from Knuth, but after reading
> his various
> > papers on the subject, IMO, the purpose of this is to maintain TeX
> > compatibility among diverse systems. People are free to take
> his work as a
> > starting place, but you cannot use the name "TeX".
>
> I've tried to locate the sources you mentioned on the net, but haven't
> succeeded. Can you give us a URL?
I don't know where they are on the net, but I'll be happy to email them to
you. Or, if you have a Red Hat distribution, you might be able to find them
there.
> > Also, if we build our own, we should credit Knuth & TeX, but
> also explicitly
> > reference the Apache license in the files, so that contributors
> know they
> > are contributing under that license.
>
> Well, that depends on the licence. We cannot just simply credit Knuth &
> TeX and apply the Apache licence. Jörg's analysis of the situation is
> pretty accurate IMO. This is a non-trivial matter.
Maybe I missed something in Joerg's analysis, or maybe I forgot to summarize
the Knuth/TeX license. Essentially, it is this: "Use this software for
anything that you wish, but don't modify it and call it TeX". In other
words, Knuth retains control over TeX, but has no objection to anyone taking
that code & starting another project with it -- he just doesn't want any
confusion over what is TeX. I agree that it is a non-trivial matter, and
that we need to respect everyone's rights, so if I have misunderstood
something, please set me straight. Otherwise, I think we really can simply
apply the Apache license to that work. The credits are simple courtesy. I
just think it is better to start with something that works, even if
incomplete, and have contributors add to it to make it complete, than to try
to mess with the other licenses.
Victor Mote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 17.02.2003 17:36:13 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > Todos, as I see them:
> > - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> > to be ok.
> > - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
>
> I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat (the relevant
> files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject to Knuth's
> license, which IMO is Apache-compatible. It seems like the best approach is
> to start with these, & let contributors modify them as necessary. They
> contain "do not change" caveats from Knuth, but after reading his various
> papers on the subject, IMO, the purpose of this is to maintain TeX
> compatibility among diverse systems. People are free to take his work as a
> starting place, but you cannot use the name "TeX".
I've tried to locate the sources you mentioned on the net, but haven't
succeeded. Can you give us a URL?
> > - Contact the authors of non-GPL and non-LPPL hyphenation files for
> > permission to use and redistribute their hyphenation files.
>
> This would be unnecessary if we start with the right base & build from
> there.
>
> > - Maybe write a parser for Tex hyphenation files so they can be directly
> > read by FOP (without conversion to XML, so people can download the
> > hyphenation files themselves and make them responsible to follow the
> > individual licences)
>
> I have no objection to this, but the conversion does not look very
> complicated, and if we distribute our own, then there is no need for it.
>
> Also, if we build our own, we should credit Knuth & TeX, but also explicitly
> reference the Apache license in the files, so that contributors know they
> are contributing under that license.
Well, that depends on the licence. We cannot just simply credit Knuth &
TeX and apply the Apache licence. Jörg's analysis of the situation is
pretty accurate IMO. This is a non-trivial matter.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 17.02.2003 17:11:42 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >>So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
> >
> > Yep, can you do that or shall I?
>
> I'll do it.
Thanks!
> [..]
>
> >>IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
> >>is the distribuition.
> >
> > No. The patterns in FOP are currently in some XML format. The patterns
> > found on the web are in an ASCII format. FOP needs to be adjusted so it
> > can read the ASCII files directly, I think.
>
> I was thinking about distributing our .hyp files via SourceForge under LPPL.
That seems awkward. It would be much easier to just point our users to
OpenOffice or some FTP directory. Is it really necessary from a
performance point of view to create the .hyp files? Does anyone know?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
[..]
>>So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
>
> Yep, can you do that or shall I?
I'll do it.
[..]
>>IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
>>is the distribuition.
>
> No. The patterns in FOP are currently in some XML format. The patterns
> found on the web are in an ASCII format. FOP needs to be adjusted so it
> can read the ASCII files directly, I think.
I was thinking about distributing our .hyp files via SourceForge under LPPL.
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 17.02.2003 16:16:55 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >><sidenote>
> >>While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
> >>found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
> >>hyphenation tables and licensed under GNU LGPL ...
> >></sidenote>
> >
> > Do you have a link? LGPL is not unproblematic as could be seen in recent
>
> http://whiteboard.openoffice.org/lingucomponent/download_dictionary.html?JServSessionIdservlets=v100ota723#hyphenation
> See README in hyph_de_DE.zip
> But I'm not proposing to use those patterns, I was just wondering if
> it's ok to re-license it under LGPL.
Interesting.
> > discussions on community@. I would want clearance from higher up before
> > we used and (a different topic) redistributed the hyphenation patterns.
> > I can take this to the PMC and to licencing if necessary.
>
> +1
>
> [..]
>
> > Todos, as I see them:
> > - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> > to be ok.
>
> So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
Yep, can you do that or shall I?
> > - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
>
> Would be the best solution.
>
> > - Contact the authors of non-GPL and non-LPPL hyphenation files for
> > permission to use and redistribute their hyphenation files.
>
> Could be troublesome (for example the german pattern file mentions three
> authors)
> Any volunteers?
I can try.
> > - Maybe write a parser for Tex hyphenation files so they can be directly
> > read by FOP (without conversion to XML, so people can download the
> > hyphenation files themselves and make them responsible to follow the
> > individual licences)
>
> IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
> is the distribuition.
No. The patterns in FOP are currently in some XML format. The patterns
found on the web are in an ASCII format. FOP needs to be adjusted so it
can read the ASCII files directly, I think.
> For example it should be ok if we create a new SourceForge project with
> just the hyphenation patterns and license it under LPPL. Then people
> could download the jar, put it in the lib dir and everything should be fine.
If the patterns from OpenOffice work with our hyphenation system then
we just need to make sure we can read them and point our users to that
location.
>
> > - Maybe adjust FOP so it is more flexible reading hyphenation files.
> > - Add something to future release notes about hyphenation.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
+1
On 25.02.2003 15:42:02 Christian Geisert wrote:
> I think it's sufficient to remove the patterns (both .xml
> and .hyp) from the distributions in question and then add
> an 'a' after the version number.
> What do you think?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
[..]
> BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
no.xml appears first in FOP 0.19.0.
> containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
> The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
The source distribution also includes fop.jar
> kept. Who has access to the distro repository?
I think it's sufficient to remove the patterns (both .xml
and .hyp) from the distributions in question and then add
an 'a' after the version number.
What do you think?
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Peter B. West wrote:
> As long as we are still able to recover complete historical binary
> distributions. If a problem arises over a past distribution, we are far
> better off if we can refer to the actual distribution, even if that is
> no longer available for general distribution.
If you are worried about such things - you can -always- ask the secretary
of the board@ (Jim Jagielski) to put something on file. On paper, or
digital - with a date and to be kept for prosetiry. I.e. as an
incorperated foundation we have the framework for such things.
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 20.02.2003 23:58:48 J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
>
>>BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
>>containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
>>The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
>>kept. Who has access to the distro repository?
>
>
> Good thought!
As long as we are still able to recover complete historical binary
distributions. If a problem arises over a past distribution, we are far
better off if we can refer to the actual distribution, even if that is
no longer available for general distribution.
--
Peter B. West pbwest@powerup.com.au http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: XMLReader...
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Swapan Golla wrote:
> Any ways to instruct FOP to use a particular SAXParser
> rather than setting as system property ?
FOP uses whatever parser you supply to the Driver, however,
providing a certain parser to external SVG is a bit trickier.
The only way I can see right now is to get the source distro,
adjust the createParser() method of the Driver appropriately
and recompile.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: XMLReader...
Posted by Swapan Golla <sg...@yahoo.com>.
Any ways to instruct FOP to use a particular SAXParser
rather than setting as system property ?
Swapan.
--- "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Swapan Golla wrote:
> > [ERROR] Could not load external SVG: SAX2 driver
> class
> > weblogic.xml.jaxp.RegistryXMLReader loaded but
> cannot
> > be instantiated
> > (no empty public constructor?)
> This is something you should complain to your
> WebLogic
> support.
>
> > Is there a way I can instruct the SVG transcoder
> API
> > to use a specific xmlreader than the one used by
> > weblogic ?
> It depends. The easiest way would be to put the jar
> with the parser you want to use in the classpath
> before
> the WebLogic jar. If you use JDK 1.4 , you can copy
> the
> jar to the JDK's lib/endorsed directory. Another
> possiblity
> is to set the java.xml.parsers.SAXParserFactory
> service
> to the class name of the factory you want to use.
>
> J.Pietschmann
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email:
> fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
HTML to FO
Posted by Swapan Golla <sg...@yahoo.com>.
I am having a need to convert html ( or xhtml ) to fo
documents and then to pdf. Any suggestions on the best
ways to achieve this ? I should be able to use/call
this from my java program.
Thanks in advance,
Swapan.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: XMLReader...
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Swapan Golla wrote:
> [ERROR] Could not load external SVG: SAX2 driver class
> weblogic.xml.jaxp.RegistryXMLReader loaded but cannot
> be instantiated
> (no empty public constructor?)
This is something you should complain to your WebLogic
support.
> Is there a way I can instruct the SVG transcoder API
> to use a specific xmlreader than the one used by
> weblogic ?
It depends. The easiest way would be to put the jar
with the parser you want to use in the classpath before
the WebLogic jar. If you use JDK 1.4 , you can copy the
jar to the JDK's lib/endorsed directory. Another possiblity
is to set the java.xml.parsers.SAXParserFactory service
to the class name of the factory you want to use.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
XMLReader...
Posted by Swapan Golla <sg...@yahoo.com>.
I am trying to convert an svg document into pdf using
<fo:external-graphic>. It doesn't seem to work
properly on weblogic server. It gives the following
error:
[ERROR] Could not load external SVG: SAX2 driver class
weblogic.xml.jaxp.RegistryXMLReader loaded but cannot
be instantiated
(no empty public constructor?)
[ERROR] Error while creating area : No ImageReader for
this type of image
(http://xxxx/xxx/xxxx/image.svg)
Is there a way I can instruct the SVG transcoder API
to use a specific xmlreader than the one used by
weblogic ?
Thanks in advance,
Swapan.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>>The important part for us is that the LPPL is not viral, with
>>the exception of the filename prohibition. In particular it
>>allows distributing derived work (read: binary FOP distributions)
>>without the code.
>
> Yes, but see point 4, for example. That will be difficult for the
> compiled hyphenation patterns.
We can place a LICENSE file mentioning the exceptions and providing
the required pointers (if necessary) into the binary distribution.
The point was that the LPPL does not infect the whole distribution
summarily.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 20.02.2003 23:58:48 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Victor Mote wrote:
> > I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may
> > distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only
> > part of The Program is not allowed."
>
> Well, as I already wrote in another post, it's not really
> clear what "The Program" is in the context of the hyphenation
> files. The case I examined had *only* the hyphenation file
> in the directory the URL pointed to, with no visible affilations
> to any other files from either the context nor the file itself
> (did not mention "..is part of <The Program>" or something.
> I concluded "The Program" is in this case the hyphenation file
> itself.
I agree.
> Also I think the preamble refers to *unmodified* files. Derived
> works seems not to be covered there.
>
>
> The important part for us is that the LPPL is not viral, with
> the exception of the filename prohibition. In particular it
> allows distributing derived work (read: binary FOP distributions)
> without the code.
Yes, but see point 4, for example. That will be difficult for the
compiled hyphenation patterns.
> BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
> containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
> The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
> kept. Who has access to the distro repository?
Good thought!
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Victor Mote wrote:
> I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may
> distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only
> part of The Program is not allowed."
Well, as I already wrote in another post, it's not really
clear what "The Program" is in the context of the hyphenation
files. The case I examined had *only* the hyphenation file
in the directory the URL pointed to, with no visible affilations
to any other files from either the context nor the file itself
(did not mention "..is part of <The Program>" or something.
I concluded "The Program" is in this case the hyphenation file
itself.
Also I think the preamble refers to *unmodified* files. Derived
works seems not to be covered there.
The important part for us is that the LPPL is not viral, with
the exception of the filename prohibition. In particular it
allows distributing derived work (read: binary FOP distributions)
without the code.
BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution
containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources.
The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be
kept. Who has access to the distro repository?
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 18.02.2003 22:07:13 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> <snip/>
> > The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
> > of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
> > by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
> > mentioned above. 4, 5 and 6 can be easily checked and corrected,
> > and 8(B) should be easy too. I can look into it this weekend.
>
> Thank you, that'd be great! It didn't occur to me that we could leave
> the licence of some source files as is. I thought that would only apply
> to third-party JARs. Nonetheless, before I'd like to allow any LPPL file
> to reside in our repository I want the approval from the board or
> licencing@. At least the process of officially approving other licences
> and publishing the results for all to see has kicked off.
I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may
distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only
part of The Program is not allowed."
Victor Mote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 18.02.2003 22:07:13 J.Pietschmann wrote:
<snip/>
> The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
> of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
> by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
> mentioned above. 4, 5 and 6 can be easily checked and corrected,
> and 8(B) should be easy too. I can look into it this weekend.
Thank you, that'd be great! It didn't occur to me that we could leave
the licence of some source files as is. I thought that would only apply
to third-party JARs. Nonetheless, before I'd like to allow any LPPL file
to reside in our repository I want the approval from the board or
licencing@. At least the process of officially approving other licences
and publishing the results for all to see has kicked off.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Christian Geisert wrote:
> And IMHO (and IANAL etc.) this is the crux as the Apache Software
> License does not forbid renamming the files.
> Yes, that's hairsplitting and comletly against common sense
> but remember we're talking about legal issues her.
>
I meant the following LPPL condition:
3. You must not distribute the modified file with the filename of the
original file.
(from http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt)
Because the FOP files end in .xml rather than .tex, we conform
at least technically. The idea was probably to avoid the confusion
of having several "hyphde.tex" files floating around, vaguely
similar to the prohibition of using "Apache" for products derived
from ASF code.
>> A binary distribution is another matter because of the compiled
>> *.hyph files, which are obviously derived. But again it should
>
> Hu? Above you said the XML files are also derived. What's the
> difference between source and binary distribution?
The XML files (at least the file I examined) had a pointer
to the original file, as required by LPPL 8(B). The binaries
obviously don't have it, so we have to put this elsewhere
preferably in the place where it's mentioned that certain
compiled hyph files derived from LPPL'd files.
I'm not sure whether our hyph "compilation" consitutes a
mechanical transformation, which causes the result to be
"another representation of the Original Work" so that it
inherits the copyright and the license of the source, or
whether the serialized class is a "Derived Work", where
we could claim copyright and set license conditions.
The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
mentioned above. 4, 5 and 6 can be easily checked and corrected,
and 8(B) should be easy too. I can look into it this weekend.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
J.Pietschmann schrieb:
[..]
> Ouch. I don't think we can distribute FOP without english
> hyphenation.
Sure we *can* ;-) But if it's a good thing ...
> I just had another look at the LPPL and the other files.
> The LPPL file I examined seems to be harmless. The license
> says we can distribute the hyphenation XML file as derived
> from the original TeX hyphenation file as long as there is
> a pointer/URL to the original "The Program". It's not quite
> clear to me what "The Program" is in case of the hyphenation
> file, but it doesn't seem to include much more than the
> hyphenation file itself, in this case, as there isn't much
> more in the directory. The only other condition is that
> the file must have another name (no problem).
And IMHO (and IANAL etc.) this is the crux as the Apache Software
License does not forbid renamming the files.
Yes, that's hairsplitting and comletly against common sense
but remember we're talking about legal issues her.
> I think we are safe for the source distribution including
> LPPL hyphenation files.
> A binary distribution is another matter because of the compiled
> *.hyph files, which are obviously derived. But again it should
Hu? Above you said the XML files are also derived. What's the
difference between source and binary distribution?
[..]
> As for the other files, I think es.xml is safe too. While
> there's mentioned the source was taken from Lout, it does not
> put it automatically under GPL, and there is a license further
> down the file which reads roughly like the artistic license.
Ok.
[..]
> And, well, I hope our PetroBras friend changed enough of the
> pt.xml to claim copyright, as he assigned it summarily to
> the ASF... nice, but a real legal burden! I checked it in, but
> now I think I should have asked for a paper first.
So I'll remove it for RC2 and it will hopefully be resolved till the
final release.
I had another look at the files and the following seem to be ok too:
en_GB.xml - may be freely distributed.
it.xml - Use of the original work granted by the author
Christian
P.S. Yes I'm rushing a bit but I'll be on holiday from tomorrow till
sunday and I want to make the RC before leaving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>> - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
>> to be ok.
>
> So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
Ouch. I don't think we can distribute FOP without english
hyphenation.
I just had another look at the LPPL and the other files.
The LPPL file I examined seems to be harmless. The license
says we can distribute the hyphenation XML file as derived
from the original TeX hyphenation file as long as there is
a pointer/URL to the original "The Program". It's not quite
clear to me what "The Program" is in case of the hyphenation
file, but it doesn't seem to include much more than the
hyphenation file itself, in this case, as there isn't much
more in the directory. The only other condition is that
the file must have another name (no problem).
I think we are safe for the source distribution including
LPPL hyphenation files.
A binary distribution is another matter because of the compiled
*.hyph files, which are obviously derived. But again it should
be safe if we include a prominent remark in a README or
LICENSE that the distribution contains such and such stuff
defrived from foo&bar files, and provide URLs to the original
TeX files.
Of course, getting the XML files under the Apache license
would save us this hassle.
As for the other files, I think es.xml is safe too. While
there's mentioned the source was taken from Lout, it does not
put it automatically under GPL, and there is a license further
down the file which reads roughly like the artistic license.
The really problematic files are cs.xml, sk.xml and no.xml,
which are explicit GPL. I don't think there is harm for the ASF
if these files are distributed as-is with a source distribution,
but compiling them into a *.hyphs into a jar would make the
entire binary distribution GPL! Mind numbing...
And, well, I hope our PetroBras friend changed enough of the
pt.xml to claim copyright, as he assigned it summarily to
the ASF... nice, but a real legal burden! I checked it in, but
now I think I should have asked for a paper first.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
[..]
>><sidenote>
>>While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
>>found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
>>hyphenation tables and licensed under GNU LGPL ...
>></sidenote>
>
> Do you have a link? LGPL is not unproblematic as could be seen in recent
http://whiteboard.openoffice.org/lingucomponent/download_dictionary.html?JServSessionIdservlets=v100ota723#hyphenation
See README in hyph_de_DE.zip
But I'm not proposing to use those patterns, I was just wondering if
it's ok to re-license it under LGPL.
> discussions on community@. I would want clearance from higher up before
> we used and (a different topic) redistributed the hyphenation patterns.
> I can take this to the PMC and to licencing if necessary.
+1
[..]
> Todos, as I see them:
> - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> to be ok.
So remove everything excpet fi, pl and pt?
> - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
Would be the best solution.
> - Contact the authors of non-GPL and non-LPPL hyphenation files for
> permission to use and redistribute their hyphenation files.
Could be troublesome (for example the german pattern file mentions three
authors)
Any volunteers?
> - Maybe write a parser for Tex hyphenation files so they can be directly
> read by FOP (without conversion to XML, so people can download the
> hyphenation files themselves and make them responsible to follow the
> individual licences)
IIUC we don't have to change the way the pattern are read, the problem
is the distribuition.
For example it should be ok if we create a new SourceForge project with
just the hyphenation patterns and license it under LPPL. Then people
could download the jar, put it in the lib dir and everything should be fine.
> - Maybe adjust FOP so it is more flexible reading hyphenation files.
> - Add something to future release notes about hyphenation.
>
> Jeremias Maerki
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Victor Mote <vi...@outfitr.com>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Todos, as I see them:
> - Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
> to be ok.
> - Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat (the relevant
files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject to Knuth's
license, which IMO is Apache-compatible. It seems like the best approach is
to start with these, & let contributors modify them as necessary. They
contain "do not change" caveats from Knuth, but after reading his various
papers on the subject, IMO, the purpose of this is to maintain TeX
compatibility among diverse systems. People are free to take his work as a
starting place, but you cannot use the name "TeX".
> - Contact the authors of non-GPL and non-LPPL hyphenation files for
> permission to use and redistribute their hyphenation files.
This would be unnecessary if we start with the right base & build from
there.
> - Maybe write a parser for Tex hyphenation files so they can be directly
> read by FOP (without conversion to XML, so people can download the
> hyphenation files themselves and make them responsible to follow the
> individual licences)
I have no objection to this, but the conversion does not look very
complicated, and if we distribute our own, then there is no need for it.
Also, if we build our own, we should credit Knuth & TeX, but also explicitly
reference the Apache license in the files, so that contributors know they
are contributing under that license.
Victor Mote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 15.02.2003 18:05:31 Christian Geisert wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
> > (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
> > "conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
> > under which the modified file (de.xml) is distributed must meet some
> > requirements. The APL cannot meet them IMO. Therefore we must remove
> > this file. Do you guys agree?
>
> Yes, IIUC Apache Software License does not forbid the distribution
> under the original filename.
> (not that it would make sense to rename de.xml to dehyph.tex and
> distribute it..)
>
> Mmmh .. looks like we'll have to remove those files.
>
> <sidenote>
> While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
> found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
> hyphenation tables and licensed under GNU LGPL ...
> </sidenote>
Do you have a link? LGPL is not unproblematic as could be seen in recent
discussions on community@. I would want clearance from higher up before
we used and (a different topic) redistributed the hyphenation patterns.
I can take this to the PMC and to licencing if necessary.
> What about the planed RC2 release on monday - make it without
> hyphenation patterns or wait until the issue is "resolved"
IMO make the release without the problematic hyphenation files. It's
only a release candidate so this should be ok. Consider it a "known bug".
Todos, as I see them:
- Remove all incompatible hyphenation files from CVS which are not clear
to be ok.
- Find Apache-compatible hyphenation files.
- Contact the authors of non-GPL and non-LPPL hyphenation files for
permission to use and redistribute their hyphenation files.
- Maybe write a parser for Tex hyphenation files so they can be directly
read by FOP (without conversion to XML, so people can download the
hyphenation files themselves and make them responsible to follow the
individual licences)
- Maybe adjust FOP so it is more flexible reading hyphenation files.
- Add something to future release notes about hyphenation.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
> (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
> "conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
> under which the modified file (de.xml) is distributed must meet some
> requirements. The APL cannot meet them IMO. Therefore we must remove
> this file. Do you guys agree?
Yes, IIUC Apache Software License does not forbid the distribution
under the original filename.
(not that it would make sense to rename de.xml to dehyph.tex and
distribute it..)
Mmmh .. looks like we'll have to remove those files.
<sidenote>
While doing a quick search for other hyphenation optiones I've
found a hyphenation dictionary which is based on the TeX
hyphenation tables and licensed under GNU LGPL ...
</sidenote>
What about the planed RC2 release on monday - make it without
hyphenation patterns or wait until the issue is "resolved"
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns (was: HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese hyphenation file update)
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
I've just checked de.xml as an example. It refers to the LPPL
(http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). IANAL but the point 7 of the
"conditions on distribution and modification" state that the licence
under which the modified file (de.xml) is distributed must meet some
requirements. The APL cannot meet them IMO. Therefore we must remove
this file. Do you guys agree?
We should probably do the same as Andrew C. Oliver did for POI. See
here: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPOIAudits/20030205
On 14.02.2003 02:52:45 Keiron Liddle wrote:
> > I'd say we can't keep something like that within our codebase because it
> > contradicts the Apache licence. It is entirely possible that someone
> > sells a product that uses FOP. That wouldn't violate the Apache licence
> > but the licence of this hyphenation file. Recent discussions on various
> > Apache mailing lists show that we shouldn't include anything in our
> > codebase that uses a licence that is not officially approved.
>
> I agree.
> Should probably take a look at it and if we cannot distribute then remove them.
> Maybe we could try to make them available in some other way.
>
> > I wasn't aware that the hyphenation patterns had their own licences. So,
> > the obvious conclusion is that we need to check every one of these files
> > and remove the ones that are not compatible with the Apache licence.
> > That includes checking where the files came from.
> >
> > Just for reference: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns (was: HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese hyphenation file update)
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
I can do that. Thanks for the info.
On 17.02.2003 16:47:17 Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
> * Jeremias Maerki; <de...@greenmail.ch> on 14 Feb, 2003 wrote:
> >tr.xml
> >Can't find original file.
> >No licence. Check with author.
>
> Well, since I sent out the Turkish hyphenation file I should know where
> it comes right. The trhyphen.tex is installed from the SuSE 8.1 distro
>
> toganm@earth:~/hangar> rpm -qf /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen/trhyph.tex
> tetex-beta.20020207-254
>
> the trhyph.tex file has the following header
>
> % A mechanically generated Turkish Hyphenation table for TeX,
> % using the University of Washington diacritical coding
> % developed by P. A. MacKay for the Ottoman Texts Project.
> % Slightly modified by H. Turgut Uyar.
>
> Turgut Uyar has the following addres based on "google search"
> uyar@cs.itu.edu.tr
>
> Would you like to contact him directly or do you want me to do so ?
> Although I think you can explain the needs and requirements better than
> I can
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns (was: HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese hyphenation file update)
Posted by Togan Muftuoglu <to...@users.sourceforge.net>.
* Jeremias Maerki; <de...@greenmail.ch> on 14 Feb, 2003 wrote:
>tr.xml
>Can't find original file.
>No licence. Check with author.
Well, since I sent out the Turkish hyphenation file I should know where
it comes right. The trhyphen.tex is installed from the SuSE 8.1 distro
toganm@earth:~/hangar> rpm -qf /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen/trhyph.tex
tetex-beta.20020207-254
the trhyph.tex file has the following header
% A mechanically generated Turkish Hyphenation table for TeX,
% using the University of Washington diacritical coding
% developed by P. A. MacKay for the Ottoman Texts Project.
% Slightly modified by H. Turgut Uyar.
Turgut Uyar has the following addres based on "google search"
uyar@cs.itu.edu.tr
Would you like to contact him directly or do you want me to do so ?
Although I think you can explain the needs and requirements better than
I can
--
Togan Muftuoglu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Licence issues in hyphenation patterns (was: HyphenationTree bug and Portuguese hyphenation file update)
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
I've finished checking all hyphenation files in the main branch. The
results are scary. 2 (fi and pl) out of 20 files probably (!) are ok.
The rests needs to be removed IMO, at least until the original authors
were contacted and they gave their ok.
cs.xml
Can't find original file.
GPL!!!
da.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dkhyphen/dkhyphen.tex
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dkhyphen/dkcommon.tex
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dkhyphen/dkspecial.tex
No licence. Check with author.
de.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dehypht.tex
LPPL
de_DR.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dehyphn.tex
LPPL
el.xml
Can't find original file.
No licence. Check with author.
en.xml
Can't find original file.
en_GB.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ukhyphen.tex
No licence. We need to check with the authors.
en_US.xml
Origin not entirely clear, probably:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ushyph2.tex
Non-commercial only. Bad.
es.xml
http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/
Part of Lout, which is GPL.
fi.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/fihyph.tex
File mentions free distribution. Seems ok?
fr.xml
http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/
Part of Lout, which is GPL.
hu.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/huhyph.tex
No real licence. We need to talk to these guys!
it.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ithyph.tex
LPPL
nl.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/nehyph.tex
LPPL
no.xml
http://folk.uio.no/runekl/dictionary.html
GPL!!!
pl.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/plhyph.tex
Public Domain (probably ok)
pt.xml
http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/pthyph.tex
Special licence. May not be used for commercial purposes, therefore incompatible with Apache.
ru.xml
Can't find original file.
sk.xml
http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/tex/local/cstug/olsak/csplain/skhyphen.tex?N=A
GPL!!!
tr.xml
Can't find original file.
No licence. Check with author.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org