Hi Olivier; --- On Mon, 11/7/11, Olivier R. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I read that a legal issue would be raised about the GPL > dictionaries. Then Rob was wondering how dictionaries could > be copyrighted. I thought that if lawyers knew that > copyrights on such matter were irrelevant, they would not > forget to mention it. So that would concern every > dictionaries, whatever rights authors may claim on their > work, whatever license they chose. That was my assumption. > There were some doubts on the impact of having a dictionary under the GPL and there was a line of reasoning mentioning it's not really code so the effect is minimal. If it's not code I was thinking a documentation license should be used instead, but thinking at it better, the grammatical and syntax rules make such dictionaries behave more like scripts than as mere data so a code license is appropriate. FWIW, I think Rob is talking about a completely different concept: IBM uses a NLP tool so perhaps for them the simpler structure of English is appropriately managed by an AI software package and a dumb list of words. Sorry on our side too for the confusion. Cheers, Pedro. > Anyway, I’ll leave soon, as there is probably nothing > more to say. > > Best regards, > Olivier > >
