Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
