Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is NOT a clear case of 'something being not freely licensed'. >> >> 1) The exact license of the DEC word list is not clear. > > and then later in the DEC description > >> (NON-)COPYRIGHT STATUS >> >> To the best of my knowledge, all the files I used to build these >> wordlists were available for public distribution and use, at least >> for non-commercial purposes. I have confirmed this assumption with >> the authors of the lists, whenever they were known. >> >> Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package >> can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for >> personal, educational, and research purposes. (Use of these files in >> commercial products may require written permission from DEC and/or >> the authors of the original lists.) > > which is clearly not a free license.
No, that's not the point. The point is that the above statement is not clearly a license. It's an "interpretation" of the situation by someone who doesn't actually (as I understand it) hold the copyright, so therefore it's not actually a license. Most of people who actually hold the copyrights (if they even claimed any copyright at all, which is doubtful), are unknown and cannot be contacted. -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them!
