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
>