Copyright infringement and future of Hunspell
dmjpp at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 18 00:00:57 UTC 2017
On 17.11.2017 22:48, Wol's lists wrote:
> Except that LGPL2 at least contains bugs that result in
> unexpected/unwanted liabilities.
Maybe that's why it got updated to LGPL v3? I have not read v2, i know
only v3 and look fine to me.
> Some projects avoid (L)GPL on political grounds.
I personally don't understand this avoidance of GNU licenses. I do
understand that some people find GNU GPL a "strict" license. But then,
what should we say about proprietary EULAs of Microsoft? Isn't that
strict, yet still people use those products. Looking at those ends, LGPL
really is a liberal license. Whoever wanted to criticize it, please read
it. One should always remember that if it were not for GNU and it's
public licenses, FLOSS may not even exist.
@ everyone in this thread
Ok, can we conclude now. V1 is tri-license back as it was, V2 will be
LGPLv3 only, for the time being. I did the change because I wanted to
link V2 into V1, to have full backward compatibility. But, I gave it an
additional though and there is a simple solution to link V1 into V2 and
keep the whole package backward compatible (including ABI).
Once V2 is finished, if you like it, put it in LibreOffice. If you don't
like it, don't do it. We are really trying hard to make a good product.
I apologize for any inconveniences I created.
More information about the LibreOffice