Hebrew localized installer doesn't include Hebrew spelling dictionary

RESOLVED WONTFIX

Status

Mozilla Localizations
he / Hebrew
--
major
RESOLVED WONTFIX
9 years ago
9 years ago

People

(Reporter: Amir Aharoni, Unassigned)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

(Reporter)

Description

9 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; he; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; he; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8

English (US) localized installer includes an English (US) spelling dictionary. Lithuanian localized installer includes a Lithuanian spelling dictionary. But the Hebrew spelling dictionary includes no spelling dictionary.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to http://www.getfirefox.com
2. Download the Hebrew localized installer.
3. Try editing a text in an editing box. For example, type אקלוצפה, which is not a real Hebrew word.
Actual Results:  
The word should be marked as a spelling mistake. Right click on the editing box. It doesn't have "בדוק איות" (checks pelling), but only "הוסף מילונים" (add dictionaries).

Expected Results:  
The word should be marked as a spelling mistake and the Hebrew spelling dictionary should be installed.

I think that it makes sense to install the English spelling dictionary, too, because Israelis type English often. But if Mozilla developers have some policy against installing the English spelling dictionary, so be it.

I marked it as "Major", because using the browser is used very often to edit text these days - web-based email, forums, etc. If this is not included by default, many users won't be aware of it. It is true that "Add dictionaries" appears in the menu, but i bet that many users didn't notice it. I am studying linguistics and i care about language issues and i didn't notice that i can install a spelling dictionary until someone pointed me to this feature. If this is not enough for being counted as "a major feature", then change it.
Component: Installer → he / Hebrew
Product: Firefox → Mozilla Localizations
QA Contact: installer → hebrew.he

Comment 1

9 years ago
I agree with you that the Hebrew word-list addon (
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3646) is necessary to be bundled with the Hebrew version of Firefox, but sadly we can't bundle it as the addon has license that is not fully compatible with Firefox license, and the dictionary itself is a bit large (800kb, compared to the English (en-US) which is only 200kb). 

We used to have a link to the dictionary on 2.0 start pages (http://he.www.mozilla.com/he/firefox/2.0/firstrun/), but I don't sure if we migrated this content to 3.0.x.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
(Reporter)

Comment 2

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #1)
> sadly we can't bundle it as the addon
> has license that is not fully compatible with Firefox license

Thanks for the quick reply (and thanks for telling me about the Hebrew spelling checker in the first place; believe it or not, it changed my life).

I wouldn't even imagine that GPL is not compatible with MPL/GPL/LGPL. I tried to explain it to my wife and she said: "This is as ridiculous as all the bad stuff that you keep telling me about DRM!" (Our relationship is a bit like http://xkcd.com/511/ .)

Since it is relevant not just for Hebrew, i started a discussion here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/L10n_Talk:Dictionaries#The_obnoxious_tri-license_requirement (maybe it was already discussed somewhere, but i couldn't find it.)

Comment 3

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> I wouldn't even imagine that GPL is not compatible with MPL/GPL/LGPL. I tried
> to explain it to my wife and she said: "This is as ridiculous as all the bad
> stuff that you keep telling me about DRM!" (Our relationship is a bit like
> http://xkcd.com/511/ .)
> 
> Since it is relevant not just for Hebrew, i started a discussion here:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/L10n_Talk:Dictionaries#The_obnoxious_tri-license_requirement
> (maybe it was already discussed somewhere, but i couldn't find it.)

I know the tri-license may seem obnoxious, but I renamed that section of your wiki to try to keep the discussion objective.  (You'll see comments I added that describe some more of the rationale behind the tri-license, which some claim to be the most lenient style of software licenses to use.)

If we are interested, we can try to start a campaign to get dictionaries we'd like to include in Mozilla software to re-license under the tri-license.  

In comment #1, Tomer makes a good point about size of the dictionary.  We will also consider this when deciding what dictionaries to use.

Thanks for starting the bug.

Comment 4

9 years ago
We can, however, place some addons in the firstrun page, as we did with Firefox 2. For Hebrew we would like to link there to the dictionary (with a big green AMO install button, not just a link), and others may prefer other locale-specific recommended addons.
(Reporter)

Comment 5

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #4)
> We can, however, place some addons in the firstrun page, as we did with Firefox
> 2. For Hebrew we would like to link there to the dictionary (with a big green
> AMO install button, not just a link), and others may prefer other
> locale-specific recommended addons.

It would be very far from perfect - "What?! But i just installed Firefox, why do i have to restart it again?!"

But it's better than nothing. It raises the chance that the user will actually get to know that the dictionary exists. (The very first thing i do when i install Firefox - i close the firstrun page without looking at it. Sorry about that. After that i install the spelling dictionary. But maybe not all users are like me.)

That is, more or less, what Ubuntu does when a user tries to play an MP3 song or a DivX movie - help him to download the patent-encumbered codec from a restricted repository. But there are two big differences:

* The average user is more eager to play DivX and MP3 files than to have his spelling mistakes corrected.
* AFAIK, AMO is not considered restricted as far as licensing and patents go.
(Reporter)

Comment 6

9 years ago
> I know the tri-license may seem obnoxious, but I renamed that section of your
> wiki to try to keep the discussion objective.

OK, i don't mind. It was inspired by RMS:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

> In comment #1, Tomer makes a good point about size of the dictionary.  We will
> also consider this when deciding what dictionaries to use.

Isn't 800 Kb quite negligible by 2009 standards?

Besides, maybe Danken (CC'd) can work some magic and reduce its size.

Comment 7

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #6)
> Isn't 800 Kb quite negligible by 2009 standards?

Hard for me to answer with anything specific to your point.  I am not the one with final say on what is included in our official versions.  That is a community decision.  But, if only to emphasize Tomer's point, anything that adds to the download size of Firefox will be scrutinized.  Ideas with great benefit to end-users are weighed against download size.  

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > We can, however, place some addons in the firstrun page, as we did with Firefox
> > 2. For Hebrew we would like to link there to the dictionary (with a big green
> > AMO install button, not just a link), and others may prefer other
> > locale-specific recommended addons.
> 
> It would be very far from perfect - "What?! But i just installed Firefox, why
> do i have to restart it again?!"
> 
> But it's better than nothing. It raises the chance that the user will actually
> get to know that the dictionary exists.  

I've added Axel, Stas, and Pascal for ongoing discussion of a solution.  Perhaps we can make changes to the First Run page.  We can consider other places to add information, but I am not sure what is best of if we can link to elsewhere.  I don't think there is a spot on the Getting Started page.

Comment 8

9 years ago
For the record, at some point in time I'm probably going to clear the talk page. It's just not the place to discuss over the sad points of licenses and their history and whatnot, nor is this bug, either.

Short summary: Firefox is not GPL, but MPL. Even if the majority of our sources are available under the GPL as well. GPL is not an option, if you're keen to discuss that, meet Mitchell Baker in person and push her over. GPL is not made to make sharing sources easy, BSD- and MIT-style licenses are. Which, btw is a fair license for a dictionary for us to include in the default build. GPL, as well as MPL, come with a mission that excludes particular uses of the source.

Size constraints are likely not a problem.

Installing any add-on from a site that's not AMO requires the user to whitelist another site, which is not something we should encourage, for obvious malware reasons.

I don't have anything against including the Hebrew dictionary on the getting started page in some form, Stas, wanna see if we can make progress in that direction?

Comment 9

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #8)
> For the record, at some point in time I'm probably going to clear the talk
> page. It's just not the place to discuss over the sad points of licenses and
> their history and whatnot, nor is this bug, either.

Honestly, I'd be in favor of scrapping that Talk page for all the reasons mentioned by Axel.  This bug is the best place to discuss possible solutions.
(Reporter)

Comment 10

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > For the record, at some point in time I'm probably going to clear the talk
> > page. It's just not the place to discuss over the sad points of licenses and
> > their history and whatnot, nor is this bug, either.
> 
> Honestly, I'd be in favor of scrapping that Talk page for all the reasons
> mentioned by Axel.  This bug is the best place to discuss possible solutions.

I won't be offended if it would be scrapped, but someone else may start another discussion there. That's what wiki talk pages are for - to discuss problems on the main page. The main page has a problem: It has frustrating and hard to explain legalese, introduced by the fiat "Gerv says". At least improve the explanation.
(Reporter)

Comment 11

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #8)
> Installing any add-on from a site that's not AMO requires the user to whitelist
> another site, which is not something we should encourage, for obvious malware
> reasons.

This is not an issue at all. I am only talking about dictionaries available from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3

> Short summary: Firefox is not GPL, but MPL. Even if the majority of our sources
> are available under the GPL as well. GPL is not an option

Isn't it possible to add the dictionary and have the installer say "This software includes a spelling dictionary which is licensed under the terms of GNU GPL"* and have the user click "Accept" on that? I'm sure that users will like it more than having to install a dictionary separately. Usability-wise, one more click in the installer wizard is better than downloading an addon after the installation.

You see, my main concern is that most users won't bother to install the dictionary at all, if it won't be included in the default installer.

(*) I'm sorry about the comparison, but you can find something remotely similar in the About box of Microsoft Word.

Comment 12

9 years ago
There has been discussion about adding a step to the installer to download files that are not MPL compatible. I don't know if there's a bug on it, though. Rob?

Comment 13

9 years ago
Anyway, I would dare to say there is an issue with pre-installed dictionaries, I think they do not include any way to be updated. 
If this could not be solved, regardless of the licenses, doing it through the setup wizard as an *addon* would be a better approach for including dictionaries in users' installations.
(In reply to comment #13)
> Anyway, I would dare to say there is an issue with pre-installed dictionaries,
> I think they do not include any way to be updated.
They can and have been updated using the same mechanism as the application is updated.

(In reply to comment #12)
> There has been discussion about adding a step to the installer to download
> files that are not MPL compatible. I don't know if there's a bug on it, though.
> Rob?
There was some discussion awhile ago about adding the ability to provide an installer to download all of the files it installs but not for adding the ability to install MPL compatible one off files so there is no bug to add such behavior.

What would be the difference in requirements to download / install it especially in relation to informing the user?

One concern I have is that the installer doesn't connect to any network so there is no possibility of security issues related to the Internet.

Comment 15

9 years ago
Sounds like we should figure out if bandwagon might be the more direct line to somewhere.

Even though I think that relicensing dictionaries to not be in the walled GPL garden is a good idea.
(In reply to comment #15)
> Sounds like we should figure out if bandwagon might be the more direct line to
> somewhere.
> 
> Even though I think that relicensing dictionaries to not be in the walled GPL
> garden is a good idea.
Both of these solutions would provide the dictionary for all platforms as well. :)

Comment 17

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Anyway, I would dare to say there is an issue with pre-installed dictionaries,
> > I think they do not include any way to be updated.
> They can and have been updated using the same mechanism as the application is
> updated.
> 

Yes, you are right, they are uploaded to Hg as any other code or string. I
simply suggested that they might be added as addons somehow. For instance,
Polish users get Polish dictionary (MPL/LGPL/GPL) by default. Butm I think
commons users cannot easily uninstall it if they wanted, let's say, for adding
another Polish dictionary they might prefer or a newer version which is present
in Mozilla Addons by that moment, but before a new Firefox release comes up and
Polish team could upload it.
> Even though I think that relicensing dictionaries to not be in the walled GPL
> garden is a good idea.

Italian has the same problem (dictionary released under GPL), we asked to change the license and the answer was something like "never". So, relicensing is not a possible solution, at least for us.
(Reporter)

Comment 19

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #18)
> > Even though I think that relicensing dictionaries to not be in the walled GPL
> > garden is a good idea.
> 
> Italian has the same problem (dictionary released under GPL), we asked to
> change the license and the answer was something like "never". So, relicensing
> is not a possible solution, at least for us.

Indeed, convincing the dictionary authors to re-license is too hard and unnecessary.

Besides, all languages should be equal. Italian shouldn't be less privileged than Lithuanian. If the only Italian spelling dictionary would be proprietary, that would be a different question; but there is a Free GPL dictionary - there must be an easy solution to that.

Comment 20

9 years ago
Amir, you're working on assumptions that are just not right, but legal advice is nothing to be done in bugzilla. Get a lawyer with understanding in software licenses to explain to you the difference between "free to use" and the GNU sense of "free".

This is running in circles, and quite frankly, we're not going to fix this unless the hebrew dictionary gets relicensed. That's not totally out of reason, quite a few dictionaries have been relicensed to be included in Firefox.

Resolving WONTFIX, as that's what it ends up until the legal situation changes.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(Reporter)

Comment 21

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #20)
> Resolving WONTFIX, as that's what it ends up until the legal situation changes.

Ignoring even Tomer's proposal to fix the firstrun page?

A partial fix is better than nothing.
(In reply to comment #21)
> Ignoring even Tomer's proposal to fix the firstrun page?

No, not ignoring it. It just doesn't belong in this bug. I filed bug 489346 for this, let's move the discussion regarding the web parts over there.
(Reporter)

Comment 23

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > Ignoring even Tomer's proposal to fix the firstrun page?
> 
> No, not ignoring it. It just doesn't belong in this bug. I filed bug 489346 for
> this, let's move the discussion regarding the web parts over there.

Dziękuję / Thanks to you and to all the other participants.

(And i do keep the faith that the licensing problems will be ironed out some day.)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.