* Jacob S. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031125 21:47]: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:39:28 -0500 > Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well that's too bad, why now, has the license changed from before? > > > > I happen to like Aspell much better, so hopefully you can clarify > > what's the issue with the Aspell license. > > I'm afraid I'm not a wealth of knowledge here, but I noticed it in the > list of "Removed Packages" in the recent release announcement of Debian > 3.0r2 on the Debian-announce list. > > Looking at http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/ I notice it is actually > on the Accepted list, though they have this note with it: > "The license incorrectly says that it's LGPL but it is in fact a unique > license which is non-DFSG-free."
That's referring to "the old aspell", version 0.33. GNU aspell (currently at version 0.50.4.1) is distributable under the terms of the LGPL. 3.0r1 had aspell 0.33 in it, 3.0r2 has no aspell, sarge and sid have 0.50.4 and 0.50.4.1 respectively. Presumably, GNU aspell will be in sarge. IANTRM, IANADD, IANAL, YMMV. good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.eff.org/ Defending freedom in the digital world
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
