On 9/4/14 3:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > >I think providing one and pointing the user where they can get others or >a newer one is best. What do you think of the idea of not having the dictionaries in Git and having the release packaging script get them? That way the RM doesn't have to remember to refresh the dictionaries before packaging the release.
Regarding the LICENSE, my reading of [1] makes me think the right answer would be: 1) In LICENSE, the only text other than the Apache License would read: This product bundles the SCOWL (and friends) Hunspell dictionaries for en_US and en_CA, which is available under a "BSD/MIT-like" license. For details, see dictionaries/en_US/README_en_US.txt and/or dictionaries/en_GB/README_en_GB.txt. 2) I would leave the names of the README file as it comes in the zip so there is less chance for confusion as to who wrote that file. The reason I think this is because [1] says "add a pointer to the dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing", and the text attempts to follow the template given in [1]. I know later it says: "NOTE: It's also possible to include the text of the 3rd party license within the LICENSE file. This is best reserved for short licenses.", but IMO, the license is all of the licenses in the README, not just the "top-level" one for Kevin so I consider this a long license. And, of course, as [1] says, if there is doubt, we should ask on legal-discuss. Thoughts? -Alex [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
