Hi, I don’t understand what is the current problem because what was “copied” was the image that was transcripts to OUR representation. Then the element that can be claimed as “copied” is the information inside of the OUR representation. When we change the content of the graph the Wikipedia license stop applying because the graph is totally new and its not related to the previous one. If you are requesting to change our representation/or change the way to provide the input to the test, we can do it, but for me it doesn’t make any sense. Because the content that was “copied” is not there any more. Also as Daniel mentioned the element claim as copied is an image that in current code does not exist any reference to it, and obviously the code looks similar because we are using OUR representation of the graph.
On Sun 7. Nov 2021 at 11:24, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Agree with Daniel, the node creation is a common technique in the data > science community and does not represent code, it is representing a > procedure to create nodes. Therefore the use of this procedure seems > compliant. > > IMO it is not compliant with ASF policy, no matter how common this > practice may be in the data science community. ASF policy covers more than > just code. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
