Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 06.07.2010 um 23:51 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > > > Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Yes. But I don't know if this is enough and legal. Is anybody able to tell > >> this for sure? > >> E. g. the spanish language pack contains a README with a reference to > >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt. > >> As I understand it we are allowed to use it but we have to ... > >> "give prominent notice with each copy of the 'Combined work' that the > >> 'Library' is used in it". > > > > this is also related to the way we will distribute it. if user needs to > > download it separately > > under proper name or (win) installer gives him possiblity to install it as > > for other 3rd party > > software packages... > > Yes. What's the dead line for this point?
regarding the speed of finishing another features, months it looks like :) > I see the following variants: > * monolithic > - easy to build and install > - space hog esp. for updates > - license text has to be "prominent" in CREDITS somewhere (?) > * separate platform specific > - possibly easier to implement as next one > - better than monolithic > - maintenance of different LyX installers needed > * separate and platform agnostic > - most attractive > - don't know how to achieve that exactly i hope i understand correctly that dictionary files themselves are identical to all platforms (while the code around is not). so i would put all the code into our tarball, while the dictionaries could be packed separately - we can even create new svn directory only for dictionaries - so we can easily share their versioning. from time to time we would just relase lyx_dictionaries.xz (/zip/whatever)... installers could choose to download the archive or pack it into the installer (30 mb is not so much, i didnt understand correctly the 550MB variable;) this would also ease the maintenance for linux distributors - they could simply bump new subpackage for our dictionaries instead of inventing their own... what do other people think? pavel
