Re: [Hebmorph-thinktank] HebMorph patch
Status: Pre-Alpha
Brought to you by:
synhershko
|
From: Itamar Syn-H. <it...@co...> - 2011-06-10 13:47:52
|
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. |