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

Re: Aspell-en license Once again.

Scripsit Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>

> 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.

No he doesn't. He says

| (Use of these files in commercial products may require written
| permission from DEC and/or the authors of the original lists.)

Notice the "may". As far as I read, this basically means "I haven't
checked the situation for commercial products and I don't care".

There's even the possibility that upstream follows the not uncommon
practise of writing "commercial products" when he really means
"proprietary software".

Thus, even if we believe upstream (which we have no reason not to) we
cannot logically infer *anything* about the DFSG-freedom of the list
from his statement - neither that it *is* free or that it *isn't*
free. If one takes the position that word lists are, by their nature,
uncopyrightable DFSG-freedom of course follows, but it would do so no
matter what upstream said or didn't say.

Henning Makholm                "He who joyfully eats soup has already earned
                            my contempt. He has been given teeth by mistake,
                          since for him the intestines would fully suffice."

Reply to: