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
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
I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
choice, not simple fact. Note that Feist applies only to the US;
phone directories may be copyrightable in some countries.
Compatibility with the GPL is not an issue here; the dictionary is
legally a separate work from any progra
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 01:53:47PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
> choice, not simple fact.
Is this a position statement of the FSF, at least if one reads the "are"
as "should be"?
I am curious because traditionally, copyright
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 01:53:47PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
>> choice, not simple fact.
>
> Is this a position statement of the FSF, at least if one reads the "are"
> as "sho
Peter Makholm wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am curious because traditionally, copyright has been grounded on the
> > degree of originality in a work, not the quantity of labor that went
> > into producing it.
>
> Traditionally yes. But in the European Union the databa
As far as aspell-nl is concerned, we just have to assume that the word
list might be covered by copyright in at least some countries, so we
need a proper licence for it.
However, since a general discussion of word list copyright seems to
have ensued, what I don't understand is what happens if you
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> However, since a general discussion of word list copyright seems to
> have ensued, what I don't understand is what happens if you make a
> dictionary or database and in it mark the words that appeared in
> somebody else's word list.
If the other person's word list is
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the other person's word list is protected by copyright, and you
> used that as a basis for your dictionary, you're making a
> derived work.
That doesn't automatically follow. You're begging the question.
Edmund
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the other person's word list is protected by copyright, and you
> > used that as a basis for your dictionary, you're making a
> > derived work.
>
> That doesn't automatically follow. You're begging the question.
> I think word lists are copyrightable. The selection is a matter of
> choice, not simple fact.
Is this a position statement of the FSF, at least if one reads the "are"
as "should be"?
It is a simple statement of the factual situation as I understand it.
It expresses no opinion.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am curious because traditionally, copyright has been grounded on the
> degree of originality in a work, not the quantity of labor that went
> into producing it.
Indeed, but if there is any original content at all, it can be
copyrighted. If there w
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, in the case of word lists, it may be especially difficult to
> discern an independent creation from a modified work that has been
> stripped of its original copyright notice. The more general-purpose the
> word list -- as is frequently the case
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, you could probably take the union of several non-free
> word lists, intersect that with the union of some non-free text
> corpora, then randomly delete a few words from the result and maybe
> add a few words if you can think of any to
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:39:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Regardless, arguing that it can be difficult to detect or prove
> copying is a totally separate issue from whether copyright law
> prohibits the copying in question.
No, but comparison of two works is an indispensible test for
19 matches
Mail list logo
