Re: Aspell-en license Once again.
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 20:50, Derek Gladding wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 November 2002 05:30 pm, David Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:40, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > Derek Gladding said:
> > > > Hypothetical question...
> > >
> > > Hypothetical answer below...
> > >
> > > > If one took a spell-checker, such as Aspell, then:
> > > >
> > > > - piped the whole of Usenet through it for a couple of weeks
> > > > - automatically removed all sequences of characters that failed
> > > > - removed all duplicate words from the result
> > > >
> > > > Would the resulting list of words be a "new" creation, unencumbered by
> > > > any license attached to the spell-checker ? ;-)
> > >
> > > No, this would be a derivative work of the Usenet postings, which are
> > > copyright their authors.
> > >
> > > You'd have to get permission from all Usenet posters.
> >
> > It would not be a derivative work of Usenet, because the only elements
> > copied would be uncopyrightable individual words.
> >
> > Usenet is, of course, a poor place to get content, because your wordlist
> > would be filled with (a) foreign-language messages and spam, (b) made-up
> > words like froup and kibo which (probably) shouldn't go into the
> > dictionay.
> >
>
> You need another coffee, Novi ;-)
Oh, yeah, I do.
> You missed the bit about piping Usenet *through* Aspell to generate a
> "different" word-list that just happened to be the same...
I guess that's more-or-less the same as the proposal I discussed, just
less reliable (nobody's ever used murnival on Usenet, according to
Google Groups, but it's in gcide).
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Your subsequent comparison of Cornell University with the
Ku Klux Klan is probably, umm, a slight exaggeration, but
never mind." -John Baez (sci.physics.research)
Reply to: