On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 29/05/2014 21:40, Lisa Seacat DeLuca wrote: >>> "Are we sure that we can use the machine translation from an IP >>> perspective? " >>> >>> Yes, I spoke to Olivier Fontana (added to the CC list) who is the >>> Director of Product Strategy and Marketing, Machine Translation group, >>> at Microsoft Research about whether or not there were any licensing >>> concerns with the output of the documentation that went through the >>> Machine Translation tool and he said there was not an issue and that we >>> would still "own the content" as long as we didn't take the result to >>> build our own language model that might be used as a competitor to >>> Microsoft's machine translation service... which we do not intend to do. >> >> I hate to rain on your parade but any restriction on how the result is >> used that goes further than the (very few) restrictions in the ALv2 >> means that the result it can't be licensed under the ALv2 and that will >> cause problems.
Let me clarify the restriction to assist in deliberation. Step 1: Cordova pushes a lot of text through Bing translate and published it. Step 2: Some third party scrapes the web site in both languages, aligns the results, and adds it to an MT corpus. Step 3: Microsoft is unhappy. HOWEVER, I find it hard to believe that MS imposes this constraint in this instance. It's one thing to tell a direct user of the API that they can't go training models. This would seem to require any web site that used Bing translate to have a TOS forbidding training MT engines on the multiple languages. I'd clarify if MS is really asking for that. >> > > I agree - that at least causes me concern. > In general - you must be able to use it for any purpose; that > restriction, albeit a niche is still a restriction on use. > > --David
