[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [aspell-devel] Problems with aspell-en license

Kevin Atkinson <kevina@gnu.org> writes:

> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
>> > I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the 
>> > wordlist as generally required by copyright law.  RMS basically said the 
>> > word list meets FSF definition of Free (which should in term meet Debian 
>> > guidelines).
>> Meeting the FSF's definition of "free" does not always imply meeting
>> Debian's definition of "free", although they usually coincide.
>> > That should be all that you need to know.
>> Even if it was true, it still wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to
>> *convince* him (and d-legal) that it's correct.
> RMS gave me the all clear to use it in what is now an official GNU program
> so that as all that I need.  If you need more I suggest you talk to RMS 
> about it.  I can remove that word list from my source list but I rather 
> not.  RMS is pretty anneal about these things, please don't tell me that 
> d-legal is more anneal than RMS because I didn't think that would be 
> possible.

Famous last words.  :)

The wordlists may very be free enough to distribute in Debian, but I
don't think their license adequately asserts that freedom.  I'm hoping
someone jumps in here and verifies this one way or the other.

People said I was dumb, but I proved them!

Reply to: