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