Jim Breen wrote in two separate messages: > >> What's necessary to allow a program to use the EDICT? > > Basically the program either must not be sold, or if it is, it gets specific > permission in return for a licence fee.
This indicates that edict should either be in non-free or not distributed at all by Debian. > I have given Debian and other Linux distros full permission to include > EDICT, etc. free-of-charge. If they doesn't want to take it up, it's not my > problem. This indicates that we can distribute edict in non-free (which we are). > I have heard that Debian has problems with this approach. Of course xjdic > doesn't *need* EDICT; it can use any Japanese/English file in the right > format. As far as I am concerned the software and its data are decoupled > in this case. If edict-el is in the same boat, then this indicates that there's no ambiguity concerning its GPLed license status or its dependency on Emacs. As long as there is no free data set for edict-el or xjdic to use, then both should be in contrib (which they are). Both the letter and spirit of the GPL disclaim any requirements on data, so this concern from Glenn: > >> If a GPL program can > >> use the EDICT freely, that'd seem to indicate this clause is unenforcable, > >> at > >> least in this case; the program might end up being distributed > >> commercially. isn't an issue. > You can sell edict-el as much as you like. But if you pop a copy of EDICT > on the CD for the package to use, I'll make the violation public and call > in my cheer squad. 8-)} This further backs up the licensing status for both edict and edict-el. It would appear, therefore, that the status quo concerning the Debian packages is exactly correct. Of course, IANAL, standard disclaimers apply. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
