Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395
--- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> 2010-08-04 11:16:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
First of all would you clarify the following?
./data/dictionary/README.txt
- Well, mozc says the overall license is BSD, however
- this file (./data/dictionary/README.txt) says that
the volaburaly set is taken from ipadic, and
the license of ipadic is not the same as BSD.
! Fedora admits that the license of ipadic is free,
however is different from BSD at least in that the
compatibility with GPL is currently unclear:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
- Also some other words seems added to the dictionary in the
tarball. Maybe newly added words are licensed under BSD,
however it seems unclear to me.
Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are
actually licensed?
Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining
ipadic's license with BSD.
./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README
- This is under ASL 2.0.
! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc
tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged
on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_...
Would you create seperated review request for these (if these
are really needed)?
I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx
anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a
trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in
the spec file?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.