[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 4 15:16:52 UTC 2010
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 at 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_projects
> 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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list