Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 4 Nov 2002, Henning Makholm wrote: > >> Scripsit Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > However, this "license" contains the same questionable clause as the >> > aspell-en license: >> >> > 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.) >> >> Now there's a real problem. > > Um no. This is not a statement of rights. It is merely an assessment of > how the DEC word list author views the situation. He assigns no > additional copyright to his work.
Who holds the copyright then? DEC? Does anyone even hold a copyright on the list? Prior to the above quoted clause, the license states: 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. Any idea what "the files I used to build these wordlists" were? If they weren't wordlists themselves, then there is no issue here. Is this what RMS was referring to? -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
