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

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

Kevin Atkinson <kevin@atkinson.dhs.org> writes:

> On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>> > Scripsit Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
>> >
>> >> Ugh, please respect the MFT header because the Aspell maintainer is not
>> >> subscribed to d-l.
>> >
>> > Yeah. Other people complain vehemently unless I send my replies to
>> > debian-legal and only debian-legal. I do try my best.
>> As long as you always respect the MFT and MCT headers, no one should
>> complain.
> What is the MFT and MCT headers?

Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Copies-To.  Most modern mailers (mutt, oort
gnus, probably kmail...) support them.

>> OK, then following this reasoning, the aspell-en maintainer can review
>> each word in the DEC word list, decide that each one is acceptable for
>> inclusion (maybe throw out one or two for good measure), and then
>> declare the new list as an original work.  He can copyright it as his
>> own, license it under a DFSG-free license, and then everyone is happy.
> I believe, The DEC word list author has already done this.  Attached is the
> README of the DEC word list.

However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the
aspell-en license:

  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
  can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for
  personal, educational, and research purposes.  (Use of these files in
  commercial products may require written permission from DEC and/or
  the authors of the original lists.)

which is in violation of this clause Debian Free Software Guidelines:

  No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

  The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
  a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
  program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic

Unfortunately, RMS's statement does not seem to address this.

>> Can you do this, Kevin, and finally end this absurd discussion?
> NO, I simply do not have the time.

Well, the idea was that you glance at the word list, maybe remove a word
or two, and then copyright it for yourself.  Should take no more than 5

People said I was dumb, but I proved them!

Reply to: