hebmorph-thinktank

[Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[kirillkh <kir...@gm...>]

Hi Itamar,

I have a question regarding HebMorph licensing. Can it be used in
closed-source software inside Lucene? Inside Solr? My interpretation of the
GPL is that the latter is allowed, but not the former. What's your take on
this?

Thanks,
-Kirill

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...>]

Hi Kirill,


First, thanks for the latest patch which is now merged to master.


The thought behind licensing HebMorph with a restrictive license 
(currently GPL) is to be able to negotiate a usage fee from commercial 
users. This is to make sure the project can stay alive and make real 
progress. And let me elaborate.


HebMorph is much more than just a morphological analyzer. It is about 
inventing and testing ways to search Hebrew texts, to rank them, and 
then to be able to tell which method is better for different scenarios. 
This requires a lot of resources, and to be able to do this, the project 
needs support. Commercial users is where this support should come from; 
as a matter of fact, commercial users should WANT to support this 
project as it will only make their search-based products better as it 
evolves, and it evolves.


There's plenty going on with HebMorph, and I'll be posting about a bunch 
really soon. Searches being made with MorphAnalyzer are showing really 
good performance, and I'm very satisfied with this and am ready to move 
on to the next strategy. HebMorph is definitely ready for production use 
and in fact is already being used in several places (that I know of). 
Being an open-source commercial-grade product, a fair price will always 
be negotiable.


Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, no commercial usage is allowed 
without either purchasing a commercial license or releasing the code 
that uses HebMorph as GPL. Perhaps GPL is not all too strict about this, 
and can be interpreted differently in terms of "derivative work", and I 
might make a license change to reflect that. The general idea, again, is 
to be able to support further development of the project and make sure 
it meets its far-reaching goals.


I hope this makes things clearer.


Itamar.


On 10/06/2011 02:29, kirillkh wrote:

> Hi Itamar,
>
> I have a question regarding HebMorph licensing. Can it be used in 
> closed-source software inside Lucene? Inside Solr? My interpretation 
> of the GPL is that the latter is allowed, but not the former. What's 
> your take on this?
>
> Thanks,
> -Kirill

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Efraim F. <efr...@gm...>]

Hi,

I would like to clarify something about your (possibly unconventional?) 
interpretation of the GPL. The GPL itself doesn't limit the private use 
of GPL'd software. It does limit distribution of binaries that are 
compiled from GPL sources. So, I think you're right about the particular 
case you were asked about: you can't legally distribute binaries 
compiled from GPL source code without distributing the source code (or 
buying an exception to the GPL). You can, however, distribute binaries 
in a commercial product and distribute the source code or an offer for 
the source code and have no further obligations to upstream.

Stated more broadly, the GPL is not a usage license, it's a copyright 
license for the source code.

By the way, I agree with you that commercial users who use hebmorph 
should contribute financially to the project. I don't see a requirement 
to do so anywhere unless they want to do something which is otherwise 
not allowed under the GPL. Preventing commercial *use* as-such, though, 
would make the software non-free.

-Efraim

On 06/09/2011 08:14 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> The thought behind licensing HebMorph with a restrictive license
> (currently GPL) is to be able to negotiate a usage fee from commercial
> users. This is to make sure the project can stay alive and make real
> progress. And let me elaborate.
>
>
>
> Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, no commercial usage is allowed
> without either purchasing a commercial license or releasing the code
> that uses HebMorph as GPL. Perhaps GPL is not all too strict about this,
> and can be interpreted differently in terms of "derivative work", and I
> might make a license change to reflect that. The general idea, again, is
> to be able to support further development of the project and make sure
> it meets its far-reaching goals.
>


-- 
---
Efraim Feinstein
Lead Developer
Open Siddur Project
http://opensiddur.net
http://wiki.jewishliturgy.org

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...>]

Efraim,

I'm no lawyer, and certainly don't strive to being one. I did do some 
reading and I can certainly say GPL is an applicable license for the 
model I'm trying to enforce. There may be better licenses to work with 
though, and I'm certainly willing to open this for discussion.

One of the obstacles I have to face is people trying to go around the 
licensing issue. Some of who that are aware of a possible licensing 
issue don't want to pay and will do everything they can to work around 
that. In that respect, GPL is quite compromised - although there's still 
a lot of room to interpretation, and some courts will definitely accept 
mine as I described it yesterday. I can either live with that, or make a 
license change to allow free open-source usage but require commercial 
players to pay. If that labels HebMorph a non-free software, so be it.

If GPL requires commercial players to either release their sources or 
negotiate a different license even when using the lib in a binary form, 
then this is what I wanted to have. I care less about upstreaming, as 
I'll be able to do so myself once the code is released. Also, as it 
happens I find myself supporting users more than users supporting the 
project.

Re:

I agree with you that commercial users who use hebmorph
should contribute financially to the project. I don't see a requirement
to do so anywhere unless they want to do something which is otherwise
not allowed under the GPL


What will be something that is not allowed under the GPL?

Itamar.

On 10/06/2011 05:02, Efraim Feinstein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to clarify something about your (possibly unconventional?)
> interpretation of the GPL. The GPL itself doesn't limit the private use
> of GPL'd software. It does limit distribution of binaries that are
> compiled from GPL sources. So, I think you're right about the particular
> case you were asked about: you can't legally distribute binaries
> compiled from GPL source code without distributing the source code (or
> buying an exception to the GPL). You can, however, distribute binaries
> in a commercial product and distribute the source code or an offer for
> the source code and have no further obligations to upstream.
>
> Stated more broadly, the GPL is not a usage license, it's a copyright
> license for the source code.
>
> By the way, I agree with you that commercial users who use hebmorph
> should contribute financially to the project. I don't see a requirement
> to do so anywhere unless they want to do something which is otherwise
> not allowed under the GPL. Preventing commercial *use* as-such, though,
> would make the software non-free.
>
> -Efraim
>
> On 06/09/2011 08:14 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>> The thought behind licensing HebMorph with a restrictive license
>> (currently GPL) is to be able to negotiate a usage fee from commercial
>> users. This is to make sure the project can stay alive and make real
>> progress. And let me elaborate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, no commercial usage is allowed
>> without either purchasing a commercial license or releasing the code
>> that uses HebMorph as GPL. Perhaps GPL is not all too strict about this,
>> and can be interpreted differently in terms of "derivative work", and I
>> might make a license change to reflect that. The general idea, again, is
>> to be able to support further development of the project and make sure
>> it meets its far-reaching goals.
>>
>

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Efraim F. <efr...@gm...>]

Hi,

On 06/10/2011 03:46 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> I'm no lawyer, and certainly don't strive to being one. I did do some

Neither am I.

> reading and I can certainly say GPL is an applicable license for the
> model I'm trying to enforce. There may be better licenses to work with
> though, and I'm certainly willing to open this for discussion.

I think we're not actually disagreeing here. The words that set me off 
on this line of questioning are "commercial use," and the two cases I 
was working off were:
(1) a commercial user who does release full source code.
(2) a commercial user who uses hebmorph internally but never releases 
source code or binaries outside the organization
Do you think they're *required* to pay a licensing fee or requested to 
donate to the project? If the former, that's not what the GPL says, if 
the latter, that's OK.

> license change to allow free open-source usage but require commercial
> players to pay. If that labels HebMorph a non-free software, so be it.

If it's non-free, it becomes unusable to or undistributable by other 
free/open source projects. I don't think it actually is, although I 
think GPL v2-only may cause a binary distribution issue w/Lucene. I know 
you're restricted by hspell. It's unclear to me whether hspell is 
intended to be GPLv2 only or GPL (any version), since the COPYING file 
is GPLv2, but the README never mentions a version number (which 
conventionally means "any version").

> What will be something that is not allowed under the GPL?

Releasing binaries of the actual software or a derivative work of the 
software without releasing corresponding source code; Releasing any copy 
of the software (source or binary) without a copy of the license.



-- 
---
Efraim Feinstein
Lead Developer
Open Siddur Project
http://opensiddur.net
http://wiki.jewishliturgy.org

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...>]

Hi,

On 10/06/2011 16:09, Efraim Feinstein wrote:
> I think we're not actually disagreeing here. The words that set me off
> on this line of questioning are "commercial use," and the two cases I
> was working off were:
> (1) a commercial user who does release full source code.
> (2) a commercial user who uses hebmorph internally but never releases
> source code or binaries outside the organization
> Do you think they're *required* to pay a licensing fee or requested to
> donate to the project? If the former, that's not what the GPL says, if
> the latter, that's OK.
For most commercial solutions, releasing their source code is a death 
sentence - or so they think. So they'd rather pay than release it. If a 
company decides to release their sources and not pay for a commercial 
license - thats fine by me. So I'm aligned with GPL even by your 
interpretation of it.

> If it's non-free, it becomes unusable to or undistributable by other
> free/open source projects. I don't think it actually is, although I
> think GPL v2-only may cause a binary distribution issue w/Lucene. I know
> you're restricted by hspell. It's unclear to me whether hspell is
> intended to be GPLv2 only or GPL (any version), since the COPYING file
> is GPLv2, but the README never mentions a version number (which
> conventionally means "any version").
Thats something worth checking, although IIRC I looked into that and it 
wasn't an issue.

>> What will be something that is not allowed under the GPL?
> Releasing binaries of the actual software or a derivative work of the
> software without releasing corresponding source code; Releasing any copy
> of the software (source or binary) without a copy of the license
Exactly what I'm aiming for. I want OSS to be free to use HebMorph as 
they like, but for ALL commercial solutions relying on HebMorph to 
negotiate a license or release their sources.

Itamar.

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[kirillkh <kir...@gm...>]

Hi Efraim,



2011/6/10 Efraim Feinstein <efr...@gm...>

> I would like to clarify something about your (possibly unconventional?)
> interpretation of the GPL. The GPL itself doesn't limit the private use
> of GPL'd software. It does limit distribution of binaries that are
> compiled from GPL sources. So, I think you're right about the particular
> case you were asked about: you can't legally distribute binaries
> compiled from GPL source code without distributing the source code (or
> buying an exception to the GPL).

This is not what I was asking about at all. Rather, my question was: can I
distribute closed-source software that requires HebMorph for its functions
(provided that I disclose HebMorph's license and distribute its source
code)? You seem to imply that the answer to that question is a simple 'yes'.
But that is not the case. The issue here is that GPL not only requires
distributing the source code of the software together with the binaries, but
it also requires distributing the source code of any "derivative work" of
the software, where "derivative work" is defined as anything linking to the
software. Simply put, if your program uses HebMorph as a library, your
program must be GPL too. On the other hand, if your program just works with
Solr, then you are *not* linking to it directly and, as a result, are not
required to GPL your own program.

Still, some questions remain:
1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your open-source
software), considering Lucene is not GPL?
2. A normal program based on Lucene+HebMorph will use the Lucene API, not
the HebMorph API (I don't know Lucene's API, but I suspect there's a way to
configure its analyzers through the configuration files; otherwise it's easy
to program a Lucene extension that would do just this). So one can say that
the program does not link to HebMorph directly - rather, it links to Lucene;
furthermore, even Lucene doesn't link to HebMorph directly: rather, it links
to a generic "Analyzer" API, which it provides itself. Does this mean that a
closed-source program is allowed use Lucene+HebMorph?

These are really the questions I was asking, not whether I may or may not
distribute HebMorph without its sources (which is obviously prohibited by
the GPL).

-Kirill

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Efraim F. <efr...@gm...>]

On 06/09/2011 10:27 PM, kirillkh wrote:
> Hi Efraim,This is not what I was asking about at all. Rather, my 
> question was: can I distribute closed-source software that requires 
> HebMorph for its functions (provided that I disclose HebMorph's 
> license and distribute its source code)? You seem to imply that the 
> answer to that question is a simple 'yes'. But that is not the case. 
> The issue here is that GPL not only requires distributing the source 
> code of the software together with the binaries, but it also requires 
> distributing the source code of any "derivative work" of the software, 
> where "derivative work" is defined as anything linking to the 
> software. Simply put, if your program uses HebMorph as a library, your 
> program must be GPL too. On the other hand, if your program just works 
> with Solr, then you are *not* linking to it directly and, as a result, 
> are not required to GPL your own program.
>
> Still, some questions remain:
> 1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your 
> open-source software), considering Lucene is not GPL?

Itamar can probably speak more to this: As far as I can tell, there is a 
licensing compatibility issue here. Lucene is Apache 2 and Hebmorph is 
currently GPL2 *only*. GPL2 is incompatible with Apache 2, GPL3 is 
compatible <http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>, 
making any distribution of binary linked software an issue because 
hebmorph won't work without being linked to Lucene. I doubt this was 
intended.

It may or may not be an issue if you distribute the source code and *no* 
binaries, depending on how you interpret section 2b.

> 2. ... rather, it links to a generic "Analyzer" API, which it provides 
> itself. Does this mean that a closed-source program is allowed use 
> Lucene+HebMorph?

Wouldn't Lucene then be linked to Hebmorph as a library, and your 
program linked to Lucene, making your program linked to Hebmorph?


-- 
---
Efraim Feinstein
Lead Developer
Open Siddur Project
http://opensiddur.net
http://wiki.jewishliturgy.org

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[kirillkh <kir...@gm...>]

2011/6/10 Efraim Feinstein <efr...@gm...>

> On 06/09/2011 10:27 PM, kirillkh wrote:
> > Hi Efraim,This is not what I was asking about at all. Rather, my
> > question was: can I distribute closed-source software that requires
> > HebMorph for its functions (provided that I disclose HebMorph's
> > license and distribute its source code)? You seem to imply that the
> > answer to that question is a simple 'yes'. But that is not the case.
> > The issue here is that GPL not only requires distributing the source
> > code of the software together with the binaries, but it also requires
> > distributing the source code of any "derivative work" of the software,
> > where "derivative work" is defined as anything linking to the
> > software. Simply put, if your program uses HebMorph as a library, your
> > program must be GPL too. On the other hand, if your program just works
> > with Solr, then you are *not* linking to it directly and, as a result,
> > are not required to GPL your own program.
> >
> > Still, some questions remain:
> > 1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your
> > open-source software), considering Lucene is not GPL?
>
> Itamar can probably speak more to this: As far as I can tell, there is a
> licensing compatibility issue here. Lucene is Apache 2 and Hebmorph is
> currently GPL2 *only*. GPL2 is incompatible with Apache 2, GPL3 is
> compatible <http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>,
> making any distribution of binary linked software an issue because
> hebmorph won't work without being linked to Lucene. I doubt this was
> intended.
>
> It may or may not be an issue if you distribute the source code and *no*
> binaries, depending on how you interpret section 2b.
>
> > 2. ... rather, it links to a generic "Analyzer" API, which it provides
> > itself. Does this mean that a closed-source program is allowed use
> > Lucene+HebMorph?
>
> Wouldn't Lucene then be linked to Hebmorph as a library, and your
> program linked to Lucene, making your program linked to Hebmorph?
>
This is not so clear-cut, because the linking here is loose at best, and
certainly not a direct one. To give you a perspective, some people even
argue that regular dynamic linking does not comprise a derivative work. I
don't really want to go any deeper into these technicalities, because they
are meaningless when the intent is to disallow all forms of commercial usage
(after all, the authors may change the license and/or stop the development
any day, and no one wants to use abandoned software).

-Kirill

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...>]

On 10/06/2011 05:27, kirillkh wrote:

> Still, some questions remain:
> 1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your 
> open-source software), considering Lucene is not GPL?

 From what I came up with when initially looking into GPL a while back, 
yes. GPL allows you to use or rely on non-GPL software. It doesn't make 
sense to be allowed to code GPL only from scratch or for other GPL apps.

> 2. A normal program based on Lucene+HebMorph will use the Lucene API, 
> not the HebMorph API (I don't know Lucene's API, but I suspect there's 
> a way to configure its analyzers through the configuration files; 
> otherwise it's easy to program a Lucene extension that would do just 
> this). So one can say that the program does not link to HebMorph 
> directly - rather, it links to Lucene; furthermore, even Lucene 
> doesn't link to HebMorph directly: rather, it links to a generic 
> "Analyzer" API, which it provides itself. Does this mean that a 
> closed-source program is allowed use Lucene+HebMorph?
Incorrect. In your code you are going to have to create HebMorph objects 
(at least an analyzer). You'll be talking to HebMorph directly. I think 
you'll find the flexibility loss when using config files is too great to 
be worth it, and I honestly don't think that will work around the GPL 
issue (because now you rely on Lucene which relies on GPL software, so 
you rely on GPL).

As I said in a previous mail, the real question is whether to use a 
license with a stiffer bite, or to rely on people to act in good faith 
and remain with GPL. And I can certainly see how GPL can be enforced in 
such scenarios, especially when there's a publicly available discussion 
about exactly that.

Itamar.

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[kirillkh <kir...@gm...>]

Hi Itamar,

My original assumption was that your license choice was dictated by the
HSpell license or other external factors. For that reason, I thought you
would be forthcoming in finding a comfortable way of distributing HebMorph
inside commercial software. Since it is now clear that part of the
motivation was restricting commercial use, I'm not going to continue looking
for ways to do that (although I do believe that in other circumstances that
would be okay both legally AND morally - in the end, the spirit of the GPL
restriction is to prohibit making non-free derivative works in the original
sense of this phrase and allow other usage; no one would call a bug tracker
a derivative work even if it uses Lucene+HebMorph for search).

-Kirill

2011/6/10 Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@co...>

> On 10/06/2011 05:27, kirillkh wrote:
>
> > Still, some questions remain:
> > 1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your
> > open-source software), considering Lucene is not GPL?
>
>  From what I came up with when initially looking into GPL a while back,
> yes. GPL allows you to use or rely on non-GPL software. It doesn't make
> sense to be allowed to code GPL only from scratch or for other GPL apps.
>
> > 2. A normal program based on Lucene+HebMorph will use the Lucene API,
> > not the HebMorph API (I don't know Lucene's API, but I suspect there's
> > a way to configure its analyzers through the configuration files;
> > otherwise it's easy to program a Lucene extension that would do just
> > this). So one can say that the program does not link to HebMorph
> > directly - rather, it links to Lucene; furthermore, even Lucene
> > doesn't link to HebMorph directly: rather, it links to a generic
> > "Analyzer" API, which it provides itself. Does this mean that a
> > closed-source program is allowed use Lucene+HebMorph?
> Incorrect. In your code you are going to have to create HebMorph objects
> (at least an analyzer). You'll be talking to HebMorph directly. I think
> you'll find the flexibility loss when using config files is too great to
> be worth it, and I honestly don't think that will work around the GPL
> issue (because now you rely on Lucene which relies on GPL software, so
> you rely on GPL).
>
> As I said in a previous mail, the real question is whether to use a
> license with a stiffer bite, or to rely on people to act in good faith
> and remain with GPL. And I can certainly see how GPL can be enforced in
> such scenarios, especially when there's a publicly available discussion
> about exactly that.
>
> Itamar.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content
> authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image
> Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Hebmorph-thinktank mailing list
> Heb...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hebmorph-thinktank
>

Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch

[Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...>]

Commercial licensing is hands down the best way for this project to stay 
alive and be able to make real progress. I'm not restricting commercial 
use per se, since I can't imagine how more forthcoming can I be to allow 
usage of HebMorph in commercial software. It's quite simple I think: if 
you make money using this software, please support the project making 
it. Since we can't really depend on donations, we use licensing to 
enforce that. And as I told you in the private conversation we had - its 
not at all about greediness, and I guarantee in any negotiation of 
commercial licensing the final agreement will be such that both sides 
will feel is fair.


HebMorph is GPL because it is intended at forging new ideas. Not all 
that would come out of HebMorph is going to be strict software. There 
would be (and already are) ideas that you can use with whatever tool and 
whatever license. That I can't, and won't, put under any license.


HebMorph is GPL also because that is hspell's license (including their 
dictionary files), and it is definitely considered of being a derivative 
work since MorphAnalyzer uses that dictionary extensively. Part of any 
fee that would be charged for HebMorph is going to be paid to the hspell 
authors, which have made an amazing work spanning more than 10 years, 
and they should definitely get paid for any commercial use made with 
their work. I've already talked to them and all that has been settled - 
HebMorph's commercial license would include a license to use the hspell 
dictionary (only for search though).


I'm still undecided about what to do with licensing here. I'm not going 
to go any more permissive than this, but also would like to believe a 
license change is not necessary to avoid arguably-valid legal exploits, 
as people and companies would act in good faith. In any case, I'm never 
going to make this project proprietary, as I do believe in the power of 
open-source and community


Itamar.


On 10/06/2011 11:39, kirillkh wrote:

> Hi Itamar,
>
> My original assumption was that your license choice was dictated by 
> the HSpell license or other external factors. For that reason, I 
> thought you would be forthcoming in finding a comfortable way of 
> distributing HebMorph inside commercial software. Since it is now 
> clear that part of the motivation was restricting commercial use, I'm 
> not going to continue looking for ways to do that (although I do 
> believe that in other circumstances that would be okay both legally 
> AND morally - in the end, the spirit of the GPL restriction is to 
> prohibit making non-free derivative works in the original sense of 
> this phrase and allow other usage; no one would call a bug tracker a 
> derivative work even if it uses Lucene+HebMorph for search).
>
> -Kirill
>
> 2011/6/10 Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@co... 
> <mailto:it...@co...>>
>
>     On 10/06/2011 05:27, kirillkh wrote:
>
>     > Still, some questions remain:
>     > 1. Are you even allowed to distribute Lucene+HebMorph+(your
>     > open-source software), considering Lucene is not GPL?
>
>      From what I came up with when initially looking into GPL a while
>     back,
>     yes. GPL allows you to use or rely on non-GPL software. It doesn't
>     make
>     sense to be allowed to code GPL only from scratch or for other GPL
>     apps.
>
>     > 2. A normal program based on Lucene+HebMorph will use the Lucene
>     API,
>     > not the HebMorph API (I don't know Lucene's API, but I suspect
>     there's
>     > a way to configure its analyzers through the configuration files;
>     > otherwise it's easy to program a Lucene extension that would do just
>     > this). So one can say that the program does not link to HebMorph
>     > directly - rather, it links to Lucene; furthermore, even Lucene
>     > doesn't link to HebMorph directly: rather, it links to a generic
>     > "Analyzer" API, which it provides itself. Does this mean that a
>     > closed-source program is allowed use Lucene+HebMorph?
>     Incorrect. In your code you are going to have to create HebMorph
>     objects
>     (at least an analyzer). You'll be talking to HebMorph directly. I
>     think
>     you'll find the flexibility loss when using config files is too
>     great to
>     be worth it, and I honestly don't think that will work around the GPL
>     issue (because now you rely on Lucene which relies on GPL software, so
>     you rely on GPL).
>
>     As I said in a previous mail, the real question is whether to use a
>     license with a stiffer bite, or to rely on people to act in good faith
>     and remain with GPL. And I can certainly see how GPL can be
>     enforced in
>     such scenarios, especially when there's a publicly available
>     discussion
>     about exactly that.
>
>     Itamar.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content
>     authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image
>     Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking.
>     http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev
>     _______________________________________________
>     Hebmorph-thinktank mailing list
>     Heb...@li...
>     <mailto:Heb...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hebmorph-thinktank
>
>