Closed Bug 343142 Opened 19 years ago Closed 18 years ago

cvs remove insufficiently licensed dictionaries from mozilla cvs

Categories

(Mozilla Localizations :: Other, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.8final

People

(Reporter: Pike, Assigned: zbraniecki)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8.1)

We have a bunch of localized dictionaries in the cvs repository, some of which are not sufficiently licensed. The licenses are mentioned at http://wiki.mozilla.org/L10n:Dictionaries. Affected locales: bg: GPL2 cz: GPL/LGPL mk: none??? pl: GPL/CC SA 1.0 Not affected: sk: GPL (v2), LGPL (v2.1) a MPL (1.1) Gerv, mind giving us a definite list, then I'll CC the owners and get going.
Blocks: 343146
Polish (pl) dictionary has been relicensed to GPL/LGPL/MPL/CC-SA, so it now can legally ship with Firefox. http://www.kurnik.pl/slownik/ort/
according to the localizer, the mk dictionary is in the public domain, I haven't found contradicting evidence on the web.
Marek: great, let's get a version with that licence attached checked in (to give us legal certainty). Axel: you may not have found contradicting evidence, but we need some sort of supporting evidence :-) Where is the dictionary available from? What does it say in the README or other accompanying files? Gerv
(In reply to comment #3) > Marek: great, let's get a version with that licence attached checked in (to > give us legal certainty). OK, I checked in this daily build of the dictionary: http://www.kurnik.pl/slownik/ort/alt-myspell-pl-20060710.tar.bz2 The README file inside this tarball says it's quadruple-licensed. :)
Just out of curiosity, where is the license for the en-US dictionary? I can't find it in extensions/spellcheck/locales/en-US/myspell.
Russian (ru) dictionary has been relicensed to GPL/LGPL/MPL/CC-SA. It can be downloaded (in source code) from http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/rispell.tar.gz I've checked in corresponding license.txt file on branch.
Assignee: l10n → gandalf
Moving this bug over to somewhere where I can mark it blocking-firefox2, Mozilla Localizations, Other.
Component: Licensing → Other
Product: mozilla.org → Mozilla Localizations
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.8final
Version: other → unspecified
We shouldn't release insufficiently licensed dictionaries, requesting blocking-firefox2.
Flags: blocking-firefox2?
Axel, unless we're actually building and distributing these files, removing them from CVS won't block our release. If we're doing that, please renominate.
Flags: blocking-firefox2? → blocking-firefox2-
Renominating, we're doing that. See bug 343146 for details.
Flags: blocking-firefox2- → blocking-firefox2?
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
List of currently existing dictionaries in 1.8 branch: * zh-TW (en-US) * sk (sk) * sk (sk-SK) * ru (ru) * mk (MK) * el (el) * bg (bg-BG) * pl (pl) There seems to be a bug in sk (two dictionaries in two different places). List of dictionaries with proper licenses (according to http://wiki.mozilla.org/L10n:Dictionaries) * pl * ru * sk * mk * lt We have confirmation from pl and ru in this bug, and owner declarations from the rest in the wiki page. Therefore, I'm going to remove those dictionaries and report to the owners: * el (el) * bg (bg-BG)
(In reply to comment #11) > Therefore, I'm going to remove those dictionaries and report to the owners: > * el (el) > * bg (bg-BG) > Confirming this list. Gerv, this assumes that BSD is fine, if it's not, we need a separate list.
Flags: blocking-firefox2? → blocking-firefox2+
Damjan, Kostas, Ognyan - I'm wiping out dictionaries from your locales from 1.8 branch. Please, read this bugs comments and comment here if you have any prove that confirms that your dictionaries are tri-licensed (MPL/GPL/LGPL or BSD or public domain).
Flags: blocking-firefox2+ → blocking-firefox2?
Reverting accidental change to blocking-firefox2 flag.
Flags: blocking-firefox2? → blocking-firefox2+
The quality of that mk dictionary is questionable anyway. BTW If I understand correctly, dictionaries will not be distributed with Firefox or Thunderbird anyway, so if we prepare a better dictionary we could put it on addons.mozilla.org, right?
(In reply to comment #15) > The quality of that mk dictionary is questionable anyway. > > BTW If I understand correctly, dictionaries will not be distributed with > Firefox or Thunderbird anyway, so if we prepare a better dictionary we could > put it on addons.mozilla.org, right? The ones in the tree would, that's why we need to fix the licensing. But yes, amo is happy to host extensions with dictionaries, and does for a few languages already.
Damjan, if you have a proof that mk dict is public domain, BSD or MPL/GPL/LGPL-ed, link to it here and then your dictionary won't be removed. Those correctly licensed ones will be shipped with Firefox 2 (en-US, pl, ru, sk, lt and pt-PT).
(In reply to comment #15) > The quality of that mk dictionary is questionable anyway. > > BTW If I understand correctly, dictionaries will not be distributed with > Firefox or Thunderbird anyway, so if we prepare a better dictionary we could > put it on addons.mozilla.org, right? Also, you can work it out for Fx 3.0. We just need to cut it from Fx 2 because of the licensing.
commited on branch.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
The Greek (el-GR) dictionary is licensed under GPL and is based on aspell. GPL is not enough for this?
No, it needs to be compatible with all our three licenses, and the GPL is not compatible with the MPL.
(In reply to comment #21) > No, it needs to be compatible with all our three licenses, and the GPL is not > compatible with the MPL. > OK.. If the original creators license the .aff and .dic files under MPL, the dictionary will be OK?
We'd need triple license, MPL/GPL/LGPL, and then, yes.
I just committed Lithuanian dictionary available under the BSD-style license quoted below. The dictionaries themselves are available in a few formats from http://files.akl.lt/ispell-lt/, and the licence referenced is included in http://files.akl.lt/ispell-lt/ispell-lt-1.1+cvs20060604.tar.gz as a file "COPYING". Its contents: Copyright (c) Albertas Agejevas <alga@uosis.mif.vu.lt>, 2000, 2001 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. Neither the name of the Albertas Agejevas nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ALBERTAS AGEJEVAS 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 ALBERTAS AGEJEVAS 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.
One more thing. How can we ensure we're compliant with the second clause from the license: > 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. ?
(In reply to comment #25) > One more thing. How can we ensure we're compliant with the second clause from > the license: > > > 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. > > ? Oh, here comes a question from Marek: is the form in which we distribute dictionaries a binary or a source form? Indeed, while Fx/Tb are binary packages, the dictionaries are distributed in source form (sort of), right?..
Kostas: the dictionaries need to either be available under all three of MPL, LGPL and GPL _or_ they need to be available under BSD. MPL/GPL or LGPL/GPL or just MPL or just GPL won't do. Rimas: we normally obey such licences by adding the licence text to about:licence. However, there's currently no mechanism to have locale-specific additions to that file. We could create one using Dan Glazman's HTML overlays, perhaps. Gerv
(In reply to comment #27) > Kostas: the dictionaries need to either be available under all three of MPL, > LGPL and GPL _or_ they need to be available under BSD. MPL/GPL or LGPL/GPL or > just MPL or just GPL won't do. Gerv, I'm wondering, you meant *Modified* BSD licence and not the original BSD licence, right ? (cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses section Modified BSD license). Am I wrong ?
Yes. No-one uses the original BSD licence these days. In fact, when I say BSD, I mean any of the licences in that family - X11, BSD, MIT etc. Gerv
(In reply to comment #27) > Rimas: we normally obey such licences by adding the licence text to > about:licence. However, there's currently no mechanism to have locale-specific > additions to that file. We could create one using Dan Glazman's HTML overlays, > perhaps. And how about the question raised in comment #26 ? If we indeed distribute the dictionaries in source form, then it's enough to have the license in a README file, isn't it?
CLARIFICATION: I have just recieved this: Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:35:14 +0300 From: Albertas Agejevas <alga@pov.lt> To: rq@akl.lt Subject: ispell-lt distribution Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Content-Disposition: inline X-URL: http://ieva.mif.vu.lt/~alga/ --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To whom it may concern, As the copyright holder of ispell-lt (the Lithuanian ispell dictionary) and its derivative products -- Lithuanian MySpell and aspell dictionaries -- I allow redistribution of these products with the copyright notice and copying terms being provided in a README file that comes along with the relevant MySpell or aspell files. Albertas Agejevas --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFBzYiCYBFvOoRIPYRAq9FAKDbwivpR3Oeh8M6qvIIt5xOECFKJACdFW4w 0993XgYZFGidbp2qKTBdPbw= =PRGa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--
If this is fixed for Firefox 2, please mark fixed1.8.1 in the keywords section. Thanks!
as you wish
Keywords: fixed1.8.1
(In reply to comment #27) > Kostas: the dictionaries need to either be available under all three of MPL, > LGPL and GPL _or_ they need to be available under BSD. MPL/GPL or LGPL/GPL or > just MPL or just GPL won't do. > > Rimas: we normally obey such licences by adding the licence text to > about:licence. However, there's currently no mechanism to have locale-specific > additions to that file. We could create one using Dan Glazman's HTML overlays, > perhaps. > > Gerv > OK. Now the new version of Greek dictionary is under the MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 (http://elspell.math.upatras.gr/files/ooffice/el_GR.zip) . Can I upload it again?
Kostas: Can you tell me who is the owner of the dictionary and how did look the process of relicensing?
(In reply to comment #35) > Kostas: Can you tell me who is the owner of the dictionary and how did look the > process of relicensing? > The owner of dictionary is Steve Stavropoulos <steve-at-math.upatras.gr> , who maintains the project of the Greek speller (http://elspell.math.upatras.gr/) . I've mailed him (as well as the previous maintainer Evripidis Papakostas <evris- at -source.gr> ) and ask them if they like to relicence the spell checker. Steve had no objections about it and published a letter in the Greek-spell developer mailing list (elspell@lists.math.upatras.gr) asking for objections about this relicensing from those that contributed words for the spellchecker. No one had any objections, and Steve made a new release under the three-license scheme.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.