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

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

> Kevin Atkinson <kevin@atkinson.dhs.org> 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
>>   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!

Reply to: