[tex-live] Fwd: Re: [i18n-no] Fwd: [Scribus 0005322]: Hyphenation patterns distributed without license and copyright information
axelb at skolelinux.no
Mon Jan 30 22:58:07 CET 2012
Copy of my clarification, sorry for a long and not so clear former mail.
-------- Opprinnelig melding --------
Emne: Re: [tex-live] [i18n-no] Fwd: [Scribus 0005322]: Hyphenation
patterns distributed without license and copyright information
Dato: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:31:05 +0100
Fra: Axel Bojer <axelb at skolelinux.no>
Svar-Til: axelb at skolelinux.no
Til: Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>
CC: i18n-no at lister.ping.uio.no, TeX Live <tex-live at tug.org>
Den 29. jan. 2012 23:37, skrev Zdenek Wagner:
> Hei Axel,
> although I can understand Norwegian, I am a bit confused. The subjects
> speaks about Scribus, the body about hyphenation patterns for
> OpenOffice but is sent to TeX Live list. Does is mean that the
> hyphenation patterns are identical? Moreover, the license is not clear
> to me. The copyright notice requires "no modification" so that its
> category would probably be "nonfree" but another notice mentions GPL.
> Could you be more precise? And I am afraid that most subscribers of
> the TeX Live list do not understand Norwegian.
Thank you for your answer. I did not know, that the mailing address I
wrote to was held in English -- I assumed it was in Norwegian because it
addressed the Norwegian hyphenation files.
And, yes, we are confused too :-)
Similar files, both for hyphenations in Norwegian, are present both in
and in the file
in the SVN at speling.org/alioth, which is down at the moment.
( http://alioth.debian.org/frs/?group_id=30577 )
But the first file states:
% Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Rune Kleveland, Ole Michael Selberg.
% Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
% are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
% notice and this notice are preserved.
and the second states:
This are hyphenation files for OpenOffice.org made from
Rune Klevelands nohyphbc.tex.
Follow the instructions on the openofficepage for installation.
Licence is GPL.
We are, just as you, wondering which one is the real thing, and which not.
Or perhaps they *do* have different license, as they *are* a bit
different, and Kleveland has worked on both projects, and may have
released similar works under two different licences?
Do you have any ideas or suggestions? If not, we will explore into it by
hearing from other people etc in the hope of getting a definite answer.
More information about the tex-live