[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2010-08-04 15:49:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > First of all would you clarify the following?
> > 
> > ./data/dictionary/README.txt
> >     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.

Yes, the combination of BSD and mecab-ipadic is okay, I just want to
make it clarified what license mozc's license is under.


> > ./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?    

gyp taken. I guess rx can be shipped in current style (however the license
tag of mozc needs fixing, after clarifying dictionary's license).

-- 
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.