Re: [aspell-devel] Problems with aspell-en license
Kevin Atkinson <email@example.com> 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
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!