Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Kevin Atkinson <email@example.com> wrote:
>> This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'.
>> 1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear.
> and then later in the DEC description
>> (NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS
>> 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.
>> 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 clearly not a free license.
No, that's not the point. The point is that the above statement is not
clearly a license. It's an "interpretation" of the situation by someone
who doesn't actually (as I understand it) hold the copyright, so
therefore it's not actually a license.
Most of people who actually hold the copyrights (if they even claimed
any copyright at all, which is doubtful), are unknown and cannot be
People said I was dumb, but I proved them!