Differences between revisions 4 and 5
Revision 4 as of 2005-03-22 05:54:03
Size: 10074
Editor: anonymous
Comment: missing edit-log entry for this revision
Revision 5 as of 2009-09-20 23:52:14
Size: 10074
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
No differences found!


This audit started in February 2003 and was triggered by the realisation that some hyphenation pattern files in the FOP codebase contained potentially Apache-incompatible licenses or no license at all. The FOP team expects to release version 0.20.5 shortly after all issues have been resolved.

Authors: JeremiasMaerki (jm)


Run-time, in CVS (both in trunk and maintenance branch if not exception is mentioned):

  • avalon-framework*.jar: ASL
  • batik*.jar: ASL
  • xml-apis.jar: ASL
  • xercesImpl*.jar: ASL
  • xalan*.jar: ASL
  • jfor*.jar: JFOR (ASL-style, donated to the FOP project, but not yet integrated, in trunk only)
  • servlet*.jar: ASL (from Tomcat, in trunk only)

Run-time, not in CVS:

  • jeuclid*.jar: JEuclid at { { { SourceForge } } } (ASL-style, optional, in trunk only)

Used for the build process, no run-time dependency, in CVS:

  • ant*.jar: ASL

Used for the build process, no run-time dependency, not in CVS:

  • Forrest: ASL
  • Checkstyle: LGPL

All libraries in CVS contain a LICENSE file alongside the JAR.

License header in Java sources

All Java sources are currently being modified to use the full license header in each file as decided by the board.

Status: maintenance branch (done), trunk (done), alt-design branch (open)

Hyphenation pattern issues

Here are some links to discussion on this topic:

Main questions:

  • Can LPPL licensed hyphenation patterns files be included in the FOP codebase? (Some discussion has already happened on fop-dev. jm will send a mail to licensing@ on this topic)

    http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html The LPPL has restrictions that make it impossible for the ASF to distribute LPPL-licensed works. (Example: condition 7) We are therefore unable to include hyphenation patterns under LPPL with FOP.

  • { { { OpenOffice } } } has a set of LGPL hyphenation pattern packages. We need to investigate if we can use them with FOP. Volunteers needed.

    http://whiteboard.openoffice.org/lingucomponent/download_dictionary.html We will probably not be able to distribute LGPLed hyphenation patterns with FOP but we may be able to provide support for them.

  • Assume an XML hyphenation pattern file was created by person X based on a TeX hyphenation pattern file by person Y. If we get the permission/grant to use the TeX file from person Y do we also have to get a grant from X? To be on the safe side, yes.
  • Is it sufficient to have a custom, Apache-compatible license on a hyphenation file given that the license has been clarified with the author and permission to use and distribute has been given? Or do these file have to get published under ASL?
  • What to do if the license can't be clarified (as for da.xml)? My guess is that we can't keep the file if we want to stay on the safe side. Right?


A mail with questions has been sent to licensing@, pmc@xml and fop-dev. Awaiting answers/discussion.


Listing of all hyphenation pattern files:

Links below to original files may not necessarily indicate the real original location. (jm)


Can't find original file. GPL!!!

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)



Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), reintroduced in trunk after grant (done). Frank Jensen's email address identified thanks to Jens Stavnstrup. Frank Jensen has agreed to send in a grant. Grant is recorded in the foundation records. Another grant may be necessary from Carlos Villegas for his conversion from TeX to XML. This file is currently available in the trunk even though we don't have a grant from Carlos. He only did the conversion to XML and did not do any syntactical changes. The old question where to draw the line who to bug about grants.


http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dehypht.tex, LPPL

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/dehyphn.tex, LPPL

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


probably: http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/fonts/greek/package-babel/hyphenation/filippou/GRMhyph2.tex

No licence. Check with author.

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done). Mail sent to contributor asking for the original file. Answer received but was contradictory to the content of our XML file. Mail sent for further clarification. No response received. Gave up.


http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/knuth/lib/hyphen.tex (Donald Knuth's TeX license)

License: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/knuth/lib/README

not: http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ushyph.tex (This file contains a non-commercial restriction. The original Knuth file above does not. Our en.xml file is derived from Knuth's original one (I've compared the files).)

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done). Origin of file has been resolved with the help of Carlos Villegas. Knuth original TeX "license" applies to it. Now, it's a matter of asking licensing@ a few questions I'm still having. In the end, we simply deleted it and renamed en_GB to en.xml. See below.



Header says: This file of hyphenation patterns may be freely distributed.

Question: Do we need a grant/permission from the author, or can we leave the file as is?

Status: untouched in CVS


Origin not entirely clear, probably: http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ushyph2.tex

Non-commercial only. Bad.

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/, part of Lout, which is GPL.

But: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=104522450429245&w=2

So we probably need a grant. right?

Status: untouched in CVS



File mentions free distribution. Seems ok?

Status: untouched in CVS


http://snark.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/, part of Lout, which is GPL.

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)



No real licence. We need to talk to these guys!

Status: untouched in CVS

Contacted the author, mail didn't bounce, but no response, yet. (jm)


http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/ithyph.tex, LPPL

Use of the original work granted by the author, but grant will still be necessary, I guess. But do we have that permission on file? Probably not, judging from the mailing list archive.

Status: untouched in CVS


http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/nehyph.tex, LPPL

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


http://folk.uio.no/runekl/dictionary.html, GPL!!!

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


http://www.uni-koeln.de/ftp/tex/languages/hyphenation/plhyph.tex Public Domain (probably ok)

Status: untouched in CVS


According to Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral, he has written this file from scratch. The fact that there's a license in that file was a mistake.

Status: file readded to maintenance branch and trunk after Marcelo donated it via mail, no grant has been demanded, yet.


Created a new file based on a file clearly based in the public domain by its author. For details please see ru.xml in FOP CVS. Thanks to Alex V. Alishevskikh for his assistance.

Status: resolved. new file in cvs (trunk and maintenance branch)


http://ftp.fi.muni.cz/pub/tex/local/cstug/olsak/csplain/skhyphen.tex?N=A, GPL!!!

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)


Can't find original file. No licence. Several names mentioned in there, as well. Copyright owner can't really be identified.

Mail sent to submitter, waiting for an answer.

Status: file removed from maintenance branch (done), from trunk (done)

Correcting licensing issues in former releases

All problematic files must be removed from former releases. Filenames will be renamed by adding an "a" after the version number to indicate the modification. (Note: this only applies to releases prior to 0.20.5. FOP 0.20.5 does not contain any of the above mentioned, problematic files)

Status: done

[Looks great! Nice work. My one concern is what "donated to the FOP project means". Do we have a software grant on file for that? --GregStein]

--> [BertrandDelacretaz is the creator and copyright owner of JFOR and is a FOP committer, so I don't think there will be a problem. I think a grant could be arranged if there's none and one is necessary. (jm)]

--> [JforIntegrationInFop explains why the JFOR jar is currently needed. This is temporary, until the JFOR RTF library is integrated into FOP. I see no problem in providing a grant of license if needed -- BertrandDelacretaz]

--> [All committers should already have a Contributor's License Agreement on file. Assuming so, then we won't need a separate grant, as the CLA already provides that to the ASF. (of course, this only applies if the material in question was developed solely by the committer; for example, a SourceForge project arriving at the ASF via a committer might still require a grant from the other SF project committer) --GregStein]

FOPAudits/March2003 (last edited 2009-09-20 23:52:14 by localhost)