Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
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. Debian may decide that these particular word-lists are not subject to copyright, but Debian can't say that the word-lists aren't restricted if they are copyrighted. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
