Which license for a dictionary or GFDL with clause == free?
Hello,
I need an advice regarding a licensing issue.
The story is:
There is this dictionary on line for my native language(Romanian). This
is not just a dictionary that contains a word list, but an explainatory
dictionary which contains definitions for every word that exists in
Romanian (or at least 99%). Currently the dictionary is licensed under
the GFDL license, which, as all of us know, is non-free.
As the dictionary is so complete I intend to expand the aspell, ispell,
*spell -ro dictionaries with words extracted from the afore mentioned
dictionary.
Now comes in the tricky part:
The copyright holder believes in free software, but he doesn't want his
work to be used in proprietary projects. So he wants some sort of
license that would be simillar to GPL, but fitted for a dictionary.
1. What kind of license should I use in order to be able to expand the
spelling dictionaries?
2. Would GPL with a clarification clause would suffice?
3. Would GFDL with a clause would suffice?
(Note: I am asking because I found this in whereami.8 man page:
This manual page was written by Andrew McMillan
<debian@mcmil-
lan.net.nz> for the Debian GNU/Linux system (but may be used
by oth-
ers). Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or
modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version
1.1; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no
Back-Cover
Texts.
4. Is it possible for him to release periodical wordlists under another
type of license, like the creative commons? (I feel that he cares more
for the words' definitions than the word list itself)
5. Is there a suited license for wordlists (that keeps the list
non-proprietary)? Is there a suited license
for an explainatory dictionary?
Please CC me, I am not a member n the list.
--
Regards,
EddyP
===========================
I had a favourite quote, but I forgot it. And it was insightful.
Reply to: