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.