Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Under my analysis, it doesn't matter, because you can't copyright that
which is not copyrightable.
Wether you call it copyright or not it doesn't change the fact that
wordlists might fall under the IP-protection described by the European
Union's
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
The making of usable wordlists is a substantial investment in
verification. The work on the danish dictionary is one of the most
boring tasks I've ever been involved with in relation to open
source. I don't want to know how many
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:18:44PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I will repeat the argument I made before:
Don't make it to me, and PLEASE don't CC me on mail to lists I read.
I'm *NOT* the one who is saying word lists are copyrightable.
Certain other folks are. I'm trying to shut them up with
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:18:44PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I will repeat the argument I made before:
Don't make it to me, and PLEASE don't CC me on mail to lists I read.
I'm *NOT* the one who is saying word lists are copyrightable.
Certain
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:09:17PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for allowing the package into Debian main as is.
Er, the package is already in Debian main, though the package
incorrectly states the license in LGPL.
Under the analysis of some
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:29:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court can put a doctrine to rest within the USA. In
some other parts of the world (notably all E.U. member states),
something that looks very much like sweat of the brow is an official
part of the Law.
Do you
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
own country. Members of the Debian and Aspell projects from outside the
U.S. who know something of their countries' laws should speak up and
share their knowledge.
Read the thread about licensing issues with aspell-nl from August.
Somewhere around:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
An intellectual decision is not necessarily an act of originality.
You're making a sweat-of-the-brow argument. That doesn't hold water
in the U.S. I'd appreciate cites of statues in countries where it does,
or English-language discussions
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll seed it with public
domain sources and add words to it on the premise that any word other
than a proper noun or proper adjective is uncopyrightable on its face.
Proper nouns and adjectives from public domain works for which no
trademark is in
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:47:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
For example: a dictionary could be a non-compilation work if it's prepared
from scratch (ie, Webster's 1913 would probably fit here) or it could be a
compilation work if it includes definitions from several other sources
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 08:40:37AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:47:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is original completely meaningless?
No, I am merely saying that you have not proven your implied premise that
all wordlists are created by extraction from
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the end product is unoriginal, it doesn't matter what the
nature or extent of the research is:
In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company, the
Supreme Court recently put to rest the sweat of the brow
doctrine,
Here is the README as found in the dec wordlist. It lists all the word
list used. Since SCOWL is a compilation of several word lists, one of
them which in DEC which is also a compilation of several word lists. I
really do not think there is a problem. Furthermore the copyright of word
lists
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Here is the README as found in the dec wordlist. It lists all the word
list used. Since SCOWL is a compilation of several word lists, one of
them which in DEC which is also a compilation of several word lists. I
really do not think there is a
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:55:26AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I will remove the DEC word list from my source only if Debian will refuse
to include the English word list due to questionable copyright on some of
the sources that DEC uses. But If I do I will make a note on the reason
why it
[I am not subscribed to aspell-devel; kindly follow-up to both lists.]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:33:39AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
My experience with debian-legal is that, while they're picky about
licenses (for very good reason), they tend to respond to questioned
licenses with let's fix
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:00:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think we can agree that a word list is a compilation of things, so we
can apply the definition of compilation under Title 17, Section 101 of
the United States Code:
I'm not so sure. What exactly are the preexisting materials
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'd like to say that I hope that it is the case that these are
un-copyrightable, but as of yet your arguments based on law don't seem
convincing.
I think ordinary, internationally recognised copyright applies to
artistic works, which a word list isn't. However,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:18:15PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I'm not so sure. What exactly are the preexisting materials that are used
to make a wordlist? It would be possible to make a compilation wordlist,
but I disagree that a wordlist is inherently a compilation work.
For example: a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:30:04AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that you have recourse if sued to go after the one making
the Testimony for your costs. In Debian, a Testimony that rights exist
has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:30:04AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that you have recourse if sued to go after the one
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:52:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, it's legal boilerplate. You can't testify to things that AREN'T to
the best of your knowlege. At worst it's redundant.
Okay.
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a Testimonial that those rights
exist. It means that
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:52:18AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, it's legal boilerplate. You can't testify to things that AREN'T to
the best of your knowlege. At worst it's redundant.
Okay.
Actually it isn't a granting of right, but a
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 04:43:19AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Could you be more specific? I am not sure what you are asking.
Okay, I read a bit further: it's a third party saying this. In any case,
it doesn't seem to matter; I doubt a testimony that it's free for
non-commercial use helps
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
not DFSG free as I understand it due to the DEC Word
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is a mishmash of mostly free licenses,is
not DFSG
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm working on packaging the new upstream GNU/aspell, and I've
discovered a problem with the (attached) license of the English
dictionary. The license, which is
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically said the
word list meets FSF definition of Free (which should in term meet Debian
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically said the
word list meets FSF definition of
Kevin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am merely quoting the closest thing to a copyright notice for all of the
wordlist as generally required by copyright law. RMS basically
31 matches
Mail list logo
