Closed
Bug 343142
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
cvs remove insufficiently licensed dictionaries from mozilla cvs
Categories
(Mozilla Localizations :: Other, defect)
Mozilla Localizations
Other
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.
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
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/
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
according to the localizer, the mk dictionary is in the public domain, I haven't found contradicting evidence on the web.
Comment 3•19 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
(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.
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
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 | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Assignee: l10n → gandalf
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•18 years ago
|
||
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
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•18 years ago
|
||
We shouldn't release insufficiently licensed dictionaries, requesting blocking-firefox2.
Flags: blocking-firefox2?
Comment 9•18 years ago
|
||
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-
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•18 years ago
|
||
Renominating, we're doing that. See bug 343146 for details.
Flags: blocking-firefox2- → blocking-firefox2?
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•18 years ago
|
||
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)
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•18 years ago
|
||
(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+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•18 years ago
|
||
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?
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•18 years ago
|
||
Reverting accidental change to blocking-firefox2 flag.
Flags: blocking-firefox2? → blocking-firefox2+
Comment 15•18 years ago
|
||
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?
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•18 years ago
|
||
(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.
Comment 17•18 years ago
|
||
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).
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•18 years ago
|
||
(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.
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•18 years ago
|
||
commited on branch.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 20•18 years ago
|
||
The Greek (el-GR) dictionary is licensed under GPL and is based on aspell. GPL is not enough for this?
Reporter | ||
Comment 21•18 years ago
|
||
No, it needs to be compatible with all our three licenses, and the GPL is not compatible with the MPL.
Comment 22•18 years ago
|
||
(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?
Reporter | ||
Comment 23•18 years ago
|
||
We'd need triple license, MPL/GPL/LGPL, and then, yes.
Comment 24•18 years ago
|
||
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.
Comment 25•18 years ago
|
||
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.
?
Comment 26•18 years ago
|
||
(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?..
Comment 27•18 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 28•18 years ago
|
||
(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 ?
Comment 29•18 years ago
|
||
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
Comment 30•18 years ago
|
||
(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?
Comment 31•18 years ago
|
||
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--
Comment 32•18 years ago
|
||
If this is fixed for Firefox 2, please mark fixed1.8.1 in the keywords section. Thanks!
Comment 34•18 years ago
|
||
(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?
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•18 years ago
|
||
Kostas: Can you tell me who is the owner of the dictionary and how did look the process of relicensing?
Comment 36•18 years ago
|
||
(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.
Description
•