Hi!
I am considering packaing for Debian the dutch aspell dictionary from
http://savannah.gnu.org/download/aspell/dicts/. However, there seem to
be some licensing problems. The package itself seems to lack a license
at all. It seems to be based upon a Redhat package by the name of
nl-aspell, which
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Could someone please clarify the situation to me? Is a copyright on a
> word list even valid?
There is good reason to believe this is not the case (at least in the US)
based on the "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
Company, Inc." S
You could use the wordlists in the 'dutch' package (wdutch and idutch
binaries), which were forked off by Erick Branderhorst before the
restrictive license was applied. I got the impression that Erick knows
Piet personally, so he can probably clarify the situation.
It would also be beneficial if
ATTN: CEO/PRESIDENT
May I indulge your trust and confidence as I introduce
myself as well as
intimating you of this business proposal. I am Mr
Abdelhadi Benzaghou the
Algeria OPEC Governor (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting countries).
Through the sale of our allocated oil quota in OPEC, I
was a
Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Standard IANAL-disclaimer.
>> Could someone please clarify the situation to me? Is a copyright on a
>> word list even valid?
>
> There is good reason to believe this is not the case (at least in the US)
> based on the "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 19:27:54 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is good reason to believe this is not the case (at least in the US)
> > based on the "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
> > Company, Inc." Supreme Court case
>
>
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :of the data contents. Under this second right, there is no requirement for
> :creativity or originality. In effect, this right gives databases in Europe
> :the type of "sweat of the brow" protection that was explicitly rejected by
> :the Supreme
On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 18:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Is there, in fact, any other software that would need to be pulled
> from main if DSFG 4 were eliminated and DFSG 3 rewritten as follows:
Just stumbled across one: The Q Public License, v. 1.0. One thing that
uses it is the Zend engine in PHP
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 06:10, Simon Law wrote:
> Now, adding linking this to aspell and distributing the result
> is not possible. The GPL explicitly says that any derived works cannot
> have any additional restrictions.
I *think* this is a word list, i.e., a dictionary. So, it'd (I'd think
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:27:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 18:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Is there, in fact, any other software that would need to be pulled
> > from main if DSFG 4 were eliminated and DFSG 3 rewritten as follows:
> Just stumbled across one: Th
Peter Novodvorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> What do you think about this[1] license, is it DFSG free? I didn't
> find this file in txt or html, sorry :(
>
> This license is going to be used as documentation license for
> OpenOffice.Org documentation.
>
> Thing that frightens me is:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:37:19AM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> The problem with copyright lawsuits is that the opinion of the defendant
> has absolutely no bearing. What matters is the opinion of the plaintiff,
> who decides if a suit should be filed, and the opinion of the judge,
> who decides w
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 03:42:21PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:37:19AM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> > The problem with copyright lawsuits is that the opinion of the defendant
> > has absolutely no bearing. What matters is the opinion of the plaintiff,
> > who decides i
13 matches
Mail list logo
