Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:34:50PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> It was a scenario to consider, which was completely possible. I didn't
> suggest it would happen in this particular case. What if the offending
> word list contained only the words "the, if, and". Of course those
> words would be immediately replaced.
And they didn’t occur in any other list? If that was what the list
included, then we wouldn’t be having this argument; there is no
copyright covering wordlists including “the, if, and” simply because
it’s not reasonable.
> > Identical, no. But many hackneyed or strongly genre‐bound novels do turn
> > out increadibly similar to each other.
> Word-for-word identical? Are you on fucking crack?
Are you? I understand what “Identical, no” means. But close enough that
if you produced a work that similar to one of Harlan Ellison’s, you
would be hit by a copyright‐infringement suit before it got to your
> > I wouldn’t describe it as likely. The choice of words (do you add cwm?
> > bakress? ye? luculent? cromulent? boxen? virii? f**k? The spelling
> > without the astericks? I can see large debates on each of those words)
> > and the large selection mean that any two wordlists are probably going
> > to have significant differences in the set of words included.
> Don't waste time with retarded suggestions that have absolutely nothing
> to do with the issue at hand.
This is the heart of the matter. Should ‘cromulent’ be part of the
wordlist? Despite not having a well‐defined meaning, it has a
well‐defined spelling and currently common usage among a reasonably large
group of people. That’s a creative decision there. Is ‘virii’
an acceptable spelling? Is ‘bakress’?
David Starner - email@example.com
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.
-- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"