hahaha.... funny that the template at that site says the software is in the public domain, but then goes on to state what can be done with it, and to provide a disclaimer. If it is truly in the public domain, then no futher discussion is needed.
And note that some jurisdictions (eg France) don't allow you to move things into the public domain. You'll always be the owner. Nice thought, but it needs some work. On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Stefan Reich < stefan.reich.maker.of....@googlemail.com> wrote: > I will personally abolish copyright. Join the future. > > unlicense.org > Am 27.06.2015 19:09 schrieb "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>: > > > Stefan, > > > > It is hard to understand what you meant since we don't have a common > frame > > of reference. > > > > It sounds like you want to share with others. That is great. > > > > But it also sounds like you want to disregard how the world works with > > respect to copyrights. That won't work. As I have just proved in this > > same discussion, it is very common that no matter what you know, there is > > more that you don't know. Copyrights are complicated and won't go away. > > > > In your case, it sounds like you need to find ways to share that are as > > easy as possible. That is what Apache licenses are for. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Stefan Reich < > > stefan.reich.maker.of....@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > What do you think I meant? > > > Am 26.06.2015 08:51 schrieb "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Stefan, > > > > > > > > In order to "open source" something, you have to define what you mean > > by > > > > "open source". If you mean that anybody can do anything at all with > > the > > > > code including claim it as their own, then you mean to put it into > the > > > > public > > > > domain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain>. > > > > > > > > If you mean anything else at all, then you have to specify what you > > mean. > > > > Even if all you want to say is that people have to admit that you > wrote > > > the > > > > code, you have to specify that. > > > > > > > > The way that you specify what you want is to pick or write a license. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Stefan Reich < > > > > stefan.reich.maker.of....@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Please - can we all stop using "licenses" and just open source > > > > everything? > > > > > Progress is waiting for us. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I am now adding all (!) programming languages to the realm of > > AI. > > > > > (Meaning they can then be programmed automatically.) > > tinybrain.blog.de > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Stefan > > > > > Am 21.06.2015 00:51 schrieb "Lewis John Mcgibbney" < > > > > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > I am looking for some advice here. > > > > > > We are currently in conversation about potentially transitioning > > the > > > > > Joshua > > > > > > project [0] to the foundation. Our current conversation is > ongoing > > at > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > From one of the key developers of Joshua, the following question > > has > > > > > arose; > > > > > > There is an issue with an LGPL'd library for handling language > > models > > > > > > (KenLM > > > > > > <https://github.com/kpu/kenlm>). There is an alternative > > > (BerkeleyLM), > > > > > but > > > > > > it is not actively maintained any more and is not quite as good > as > > > > KenLM > > > > > in > > > > > > a few key respects. A quick glance at the incubator page suggests > > > that > > > > > this > > > > > > dependency would keep the project from becoming a full-fledged > one. > > > Can > > > > > you > > > > > > comment on this? > > > > > > Thanks for any input folks > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > [0] http://joshua-decoder.org/ > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/joshua-decoder/joshua/issues/204 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *Lewis* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
