On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:02:05PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >Tomáš Čech skribis: > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:28:25PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>Tomáš Čech skribis: > >[...] > >>>And at , sdvc describes itself as the >>>“console version of [the] StarDict program”, which is not >>>confidence-inspiring. Some files such as dictziplib.cpp do indeed seem >>>to come from StarDict. >> >> I wasn't afraid before but now it works as FUD from the sf.net side >> because the lack of information available. >> >>>Could you check if you can find more information? It’s in Debian and >>>not on , which is encouraging. >> >> >> The file you mentioned looks like from stardict project, but was >> originally taken from dictd-1.9.7 as it states and during it's history >> it always had GPL license (started with GPL1). > >Good. > >> But there are also similarities between >> stardict-3.0.4/dict/src/lib/mapfile.h >> and >> sdcv-0.5.0-beta4-Source/src/mapfile.hpp >> >> and that is missing license in sdcv completely. >> >> Further - distance.cpp (GPL) and distance.hpp (no license in header) >> are probably related among projects. > >OK. > >> Lets scratch it whole, I'm not laywer. >> >> When there is webkit package, I may give a try to GoldenDict. > >GNU Dico and the original dictd projects seem to provide comparable >replacements. Would these fulfill the same use cases? > >If the answer is yes, then indeed, let’s remove sdcv and add these >instead. If the answer is no, it may be best to get advice from >gnu-linux-libre@nongnu.org. I don't think I want to invest more time in this package. The code is ready and can be found on mailing list if anyone would like to revive it and request audit. I applied the reverted patch. Thanks. S_W