For many languages, there simply isn't a comprehensive dictionary file that could be redistributed legally as part of a free-software offline dictionary application. You either settle for a few thousand words put together by a handful of volunteers, or you redistribute a commercial dictionary illegally, or you have to connect to an online service to provide sufficient coverage legally.

▲

zamadatix 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I could buy the idea of the plugin system itself being desired (e.g. maybe I even want english definitions from Merriam-Webster or something because I like their style more than the open source database) but I think that's separate from what an app does by default. Especially on something like Debian, one should expect a FOSS-first approach whenever reasonable, and for >99% of users the reasonable default is a local dictionary.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

piperswe 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wiktionary is massive with 1.4M English entries [1] (3x the size of the Merriam Webster's Unabridged dictionary [2], though with a lower average quality), and CC-BY-SA-licensed[3]

[1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Statistics [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-how-many-english-wo... [3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Copyrights

	▲	yorwba 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, the abundance of English data is why I felt the need to point out that this isn't the case for other languages. (Also, the raw count from Wiktionary can be misleading if you don't take into account that there are many low-effort entries for different forms of the same word.)