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

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>

> Probably, yes.  I have decried again and again the absurdity of some of
> our European developers' opinion (and that of RMS) when it is logically
> and consistently applied.  They apparently don't want to hear any of it.

You apparently don't want to listen to the real issues, but prefer to
argue agains your own delusions about how the argument goes.

> Anyway, please don't tar the entire Debian Project with this brush.  It
> is a noisy few developers, apparently convinced of the supremacy of
> European law over the rest of the world[1],

Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that
the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being
"supreme" in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har to grasp?

> Probably.  I've tried to argue that it's impossible to plagiarize that
> which is unoriginal,

Several other people have tried to argue that a word list is not
necessarily unoriginal. There are thousands to words that have to be
judged either on the list or off the list; these thousands of
choices are fully as much an intellectual expressive choice as the
choice of which words to put in which order to form a novel.

> such as the enumeration of all the possible combinations that come
> up when one tosses a pair of dice.  But my opponents in this
> argument will have none of it.

Because a word list is vastly different form a list of all the
possible combinations that come up when one tosses a pair of
dice. There is only one way to list those combinations. The number of
possible wordlists for spellchecking a particular language is

> Their conception of intellectual property is that you can declare
> anything you want to be your intellectual property as long as no one
> else has yet.

That is bullshit. Quit fighting strawmen, or shut up.

> They appear to have no concept of the public domain.

More BS.

Henning Makholm                                 "Need facts -- *first*. Then
                                            the dialysis -- the *analysis*."

Reply to: