You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Gianluca Turconi <gi...@letturefantastiche.com> on 2011/11/30 11:16:48 UTC
How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of
GPL'd modules
This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd
dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final
consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the
removal of GPL'd modules.
The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower
to implement them ;-) are:
a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be
detected) automatically from the extension repository during
installation;
b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among
other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that
can be installed and what its license is;
c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools
pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is
downloaded.
d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools
as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL.
Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course.
IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one.
In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one.
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 12/01/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 04/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> After coordinating with Gianluca about some details, I've just opened
>>> the issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
>> As you can see at the link above, we won't get an answer before the end
>> of 2011. This is reasonable, the issue is complex
> And, always at the link above, you can now see that it seems there's
> enough consensus for approving the bundle of GPL dictionaries
And this is finally approved! Let me thank Gianluca Turconi for his
assistance with legal details.
Since all mechanisms to easily bundle dictionaries are in place, I'm
hopeful that we can try and include the Italian dictionaries from
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1204
in some of the next builds; we are of course ready to test them.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 10/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> After coordinating with Gianluca about some details, I've just opened
>> the issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
> As you can see at the link above, we won't get an answer before the end
> of 2011. This is reasonable, the issue is complex
And, always at the link above, you can now see that it seems there's
enough consensus for approving the bundle of GPL dictionaries; unless
some last-minute objections extend the discussions, the final approval
will happen next week.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 04/12/2011 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> After coordinating with Gianluca about some details, I've just opened
> the issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
As you can see at the link above, we won't get an answer before the end
of 2011. This is reasonable, the issue is complex and in other occasions
(with Sun) the discussions lasted several months.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 30/11/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> That is worth a try. Someone would need to enter a JIRA issue for
>> this ... If we do that, we'll have an answer within a week or two.
> Andrea Pescetti could have already done it. He should give more
> details here.
After coordinating with Gianluca about some details, I've just opened
the issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
Since we've already discussed this issue in detail on this list, the
picture should now be clear enough; anyway, feel free to integrate the
JIRA issue if I missed anything relevant, because obtaining a green
light would really make life easier both for developers and for
native-language communities.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Gianluca Turconi <pu...@letturefantastiche.com>.
Il giorno Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:25:59 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> That is worth a try. Someone would need to enter a JIRA issue for
> this:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
>
> If we do that, we'll have an answer within a week or two.
Andrea Pescetti could have already done it. He should give more
details here.
> I wonder what percentage of users will notice this information when
> the initially download? Even if 90% see the note and download the
> dictionaries at the same time, that still leaves many thousands of
> users who will miss it. So, if we can't bundle, then maybe we want
> multiple layers of reminders. Remind before download. Remind after
> download.
Absolutely.
It would prevent a tide of "where is my spellchecker (or thesaurus)
gone?" questions in the users mailing list.
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of
GPL'd modules
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Gianluca Turconi
<gi...@letturefantastiche.com> wrote:
> This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd
> dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final
> consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the
> removal of GPL'd modules.
>
> The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower
> to implement them ;-) are:
>
> a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be
> detected) automatically from the extension repository during
> installation;
>
> b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among
> other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that
> can be installed and what its license is;
>
> c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools
> pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is
> downloaded.
>
> d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools
> as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL.
>
Some of these options are not exclusive, right? For example we could
do b) and c).
> Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course.
>
That is worth a try. Someone would need to enter a JIRA issue for this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
If we do that, we'll have an answer within a week or two.
> IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one.
>
I wonder what percentage of users will notice this information when
the initially download? Even if 90% see the note and download the
dictionaries at the same time, that still leaves many thousands of
users who will miss it. So, if we can't bundle, then maybe we want
multiple layers of reminders. Remind before download. Remind after
download.
> In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gianluca
> --
> Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
> fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
> http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by Andre Fischer <af...@a-w-f.de>.
On 30.11.2011 14:56, O.Felka wrote:
> Am 30.11.2011 11:16, schrieb Gianluca Turconi:
>> This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd
>> dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final
>> consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the
>> removal of GPL'd modules.
>>
>> The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower
>> to implement them ;-) are:
>>
>> a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be
>> detected) automatically from the extension repository during
>> installation;
>>
>> b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among
>> other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that
>> can be installed and what its license is;
>>
>> c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools
>> pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is
>> downloaded.
>>
>> d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools
>> as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL.
>>
>> Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course.
>>
>> IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one.
>>
>> In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gianluca
>
> From a user point of view we can't only deliver an Office without
> solution d). Coming along with an Office without a "out of the box"
> spell checking is unprofessional.
>
> Solution a) is not good because opening an internet connection at
> installation time without telling what's going on looks pretty insecure.
That is true, but we do not have to do it silently. We can not do it
automatically anyway, because we need the user's consent for the
non-Apache license.
>
> With b) I as a user would notice this as "nice to know" as I expect this
> to work out of the box and close the nag screen. And as a user I'm not
> interested in license stuff.
>
> The same for c): Why should the user care because this should work out
> of the box.
Yes, it should work out of the box. But how to do that is the big
question. We are trying to come up with an answer that is acceptable
for Apache and does not annoy the user too much.
-Andre
>
> Regards,
> Olaf
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal
of GPL'd modules
Posted by "O.Felka" <ol...@gmx.de>.
Am 30.11.2011 11:16, schrieb Gianluca Turconi:
> This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd
> dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final
> consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the
> removal of GPL'd modules.
>
> The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower
> to implement them ;-) are:
>
> a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be
> detected) automatically from the extension repository during
> installation;
>
> b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among
> other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that
> can be installed and what its license is;
>
> c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools
> pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is
> downloaded.
>
> d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools
> as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL.
>
> Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course.
>
> IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one.
>
> In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gianluca
From a user point of view we can't only deliver an Office without
solution d). Coming along with an Office without a "out of the box"
spell checking is unprofessional.
Solution a) is not good because opening an internet connection at
installation time without telling what's going on looks pretty insecure.
With b) I as a user would notice this as "nice to know" as I expect this
to work out of the box and close the nag screen. And as a user I'm not
interested in license stuff.
The same for c): Why should the user care because this should work out
of the box.
Regards,
Olaf