Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
Brian Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> writes:
> > Brian Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Why did you snip the rest of my explanation? As I said, that statement
> >> is *not* a license. The DEC word list has no license.
> > The DEC word list has a license, which we do not know all of the
> > specifics about. However, one of the things that we do know about the
> > license is that it is only for non-commercial use.
> We don't know that. That's only what the person who compiled the lists
> hypothesizes, whose "copyright" holders are not known. AFAIK, a license
> can only be granted by the copyright holder. So what exactly makes that
> statement a license of any sort?
If upstream says that something is tainted, then we usually assume it
is tainted. Here, upstream is clearly saying that the word-list is
tainted. Debian may decide that these particular word-lists are not
subject to copyright, but Debian can't say that the word-lists aren't
restricted if they are copyrighted.