Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
Kevin Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Brian Nelson <email@example.com>
>> > 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.)
>> Now there's a real problem.
> Um no. This is not a statement of rights. It is merely an assessment of
> how the DEC word list author views the situation. He assigns no
> additional copyright to his work.
Who holds the copyright then? DEC? Does anyone even hold a copyright
on the list?
Prior to the above quoted clause, the license 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. I have confirmed this assumption with
the authors of the lists, whenever they were known.
Any idea what "the files I used to build these wordlists" were? If they
weren't wordlists themselves, then there is no issue here. Is this what
RMS was referring to?
People said I was dumb, but I proved them!