Dictionaries available for OOo with problematic/no licence that can’t be included in Fedora, etc. possibly through oversight
Amharic/Tigrigna: Non-Commercial use
Tatar: No licence information
Akan: No license information
Luxembourgish: EUPL v1.0
Mossi: No licence information
Gascon: BY-NC-ND
Hi
I’m the creator/maintainer of the Luxembourgish dictionary. I chose the EUPL because it has been specifically created for EU legislation. According to ยง5 of the EUPL, you can relicense the content to any of the following licenses, so I don’t see why the license is problematic:
- GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) v. 2
- Open Software License (OSL) v. 2.1, v. 3.0
- Common Public License v. 1.0
- Eclipse Public License v. 1.0
- Cecill v. 2.0
If you see any problem with this, I could also officialy relicense the dictionary for the Fedora project. However, I suggest to wait a few more months before you include the dictionary in a distribution because it is still a bit unstable (I introduce a lot of changes roughly every month).
Regards,
Michel
It does seem rather unexpected but this mail gives the reasons why the EUPL v1.0 is on our not-allowed list. Since then there has been a EUPL v1.1 so lets see if that has resolved the problem.
Amharic/Tigrigna: Now as GPL
Mossi: Now as LGPL 3
Akan: Firefox-variant now explicitly as LGPL 3
As of today, the Luxembourgish dictionary is now licensed under EUPL v1.1
The EUPLv1.1 was now approved for use in Fedora, to the Luxembourgish is now imported and will be in Fedora 13