On 1/18/07, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joel Pitt wrote: > * I think such a project should make the data public domain. Ignore > silly ideas like giving be "shares" in the knowledge or whatever. It > just complicates things. If the project is really strapped for cash > later, then either use ad revenue or look for research funding > (although I don't see much cost except for initial development of the > system and web hosting). ... Making this "proprietary" and expecting "shares" to translate into cash would indeed be a silly approach. ... It's find to talk about making the data "public domain", but that's not a good idea. There are arguments in favor of BSD, MIT, GPL, LGPL, etc. licenses. For this kind of activity I can see either BSD or MIT as easily defensible. (Personally I'd use LGPL, but then if I were using it, I'd want the whole application to be GPL. I might not be able to achieve it, but that's what I'd want.) Public domain wouldn't be one of the possibilities that I would consider. The Artistic license is about as close to that as I would want to come...and the MIT license is probably a better choice for those purposes.
I think a project like this one requires substantial efforts, so people would need to be paid to do some of the work (programming, interface design, etc), especially if we want to build a high quality knowledgebase. If we make it free then a likely outcome is that we get a lot of noise but very few people actually contribute. I'm not an academic (left uni a couple years ago) so I can't get academic funding for this. If I can't start an AI business I'd have to entirely give up AI as a career. I hope you can understand these circumstances. YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
