Re: [aspell-devel] Problems with aspell-en license
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
>Kevin Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>> I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
>>> discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
>>> dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
>>> not DFSG free as I understand it due to the DEC Word list license
>>> (beginning on line 134).
>> RMS said the word lists were OK. Here is what he said to me. You can
>> email him for confirmation:
>> I think it is safe for us to use those wordlists. The person who
>> avoided texts marked "copyright" was operating under an erroneous idea
>> of how copyright law works, but if all he did with those texts was make
>> word lists, this should not be a problem anyway.
>If these wordlists have been deemed free for any use, then the copyright
>should be changed. To me, a license that states,
> "To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build these
> wordlists were available for public distribution and use, at least for
> non-commercial purposes,"
>isn't a really license at all since it doesn't grant a user any clear
>rights. IANAL, of course.
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that you have recourse if sued to go after the one making
the Testimony for your costs. In Debian, a Testimony that rights exist
has usually been enough to cover for a license, but the term "license" for
that is rather ambiguous, I'd agree.
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----