Re: Licensing Issue
They give examples. You should understand the idea. And see why it is the solution you need. Am 28.06.2015 22:34 schrieb Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com: 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*
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: There's a difference between making a claim, affixing a notice, etc., and it being lawful and the right to having done so being legally defensible. I suspect this normally doesn't matter and is a trifle unless a conflict of some sort drags the usurper into court. Finding plagiarism, even in a derivative, will be quite unfortunate. I am confused here. How is making a derivative work of a CC0 licensed work going to ever come to grief?
Re: Licensing Issue
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: I am confused here. How is making a derivative work of a CC0 licensed work going to ever come to grief? Give lawyers ample time, and a blank check, I am sure they can find grief of ASF using a BSD licensed work... ;-p Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Stefan Reich stefan.reich.maker.of@googlemail.com wrote: I will personally abolish copyright. Join the future. unlicense.org Yes, but! If what you're interested in is creating the biggest possible user/contributor community for your piece of work this may not be the wisest move given the current corporate culture (at least in US). There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a statement, of course (GPL is all about that for example). You just have to understand the implications. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Oddly, you as an individual in the US can't *put* a work into the public domain, but you can make a quit claim that forswears defense of any of the exclusive rights of you, the copyright holder. That does not in any way remove the copyright that the work was born having, however. Wow. Just did some research on this and Dennis (not surprisingly) appears to be right. Yay for the Creative Commons licenses in this case. The CC0 license looks very useful. But either way, one cannot assert any kind of property right over a work that is not yours (or of someone providing work for hire to you), whether public domain or not. Perhaps true in a literal sense. Nearly trivial (nearly!) derivative works can be claimed with no attribution, I think if a license like the CC0 has been applied. The issue of moral rights, especially in Europe, seems sticky.
RE: Licensing Issue
Small but important correction. It is not permissible to claim a public-domain creation of another as your own. There is no open-range, mustang copyright arrangement. In the US, works of the US Government are born public-domain. Not others. Oddly, you as an individual in the US can't *put* a work into the public domain, but you can make a quit claim that forswears defense of any of the exclusive rights of you, the copyright holder. That does not in any way remove the copyright that the work was born having, however. But either way, one cannot assert any kind of property right over a work that is not yours (or of someone providing work for hire to you), whether public domain or not. -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 23:51 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Licensing Issue 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. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Licensing Issue
There's a difference between making a claim, affixing a notice, etc., and it being lawful and the right to having done so being legally defensible. I suspect this normally doesn't matter and is a trifle unless a conflict of some sort drags the usurper into court. Finding plagiarism, even in a derivative, will be quite unfortunate. - Dennis orcnote / below. -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 18:18 To: general@incubator.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: Licensing Issue On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [ ... ] But either way, one cannot assert any kind of property right over a work that is not yours (or of someone providing work for hire to you), whether public domain or not. Perhaps true in a literal sense. Nearly trivial (nearly!) derivative works can be claimed with no attribution, I think if a license like the CC0 has been applied. The issue of moral rights, especially in Europe, seems sticky. orcnote If the creation of the derivative work is allowed, the claim by the creator of the derivative extends only to the aspects that are original with that creator. I think it is basically the case that one does not gain copyright over work that is not one's own (or obtained by hiring someone) by any means unless there has been a [recorded] copyright transfer (a license not being enough). [This might be a (probably-minor) component in how the Oracle v. Google appeal is resolved by SCOTUS.)] /orcnote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Licensing Issue
Ralph, yes, you might have a good point there. But that should then raise another angle. Say that I have 2 plugins for a project, both with the same set of features, and one is recommended and has ALv2, whereas the optional one is LGPL. However, a majority (say everyone) chooses the LGPL plugin, say, because it has a a simpler configuration system than the ALv2 one. Now, does that fails the intent of the policy?? I would argue; No, because it would only show that people care more about usability than about licensing. Now, in this particular case Lewis says not quite as good as KenLM in a few key respects, which could mean a lot of things in reality. But, end of the day, the user can make their choice, either they are Ok with the LGPL, or they need to back down on some features. The alternative, as I see it, is that the both the LGPL is ok for me users as well as the rest end up with either the lesser featured LM, or possibly no Joshua project at all. So, my question is; What happened to pragmatism? Another analogy from the past; Some users refused to use Java, because it wasn't open sourced back then. And we had a whole bunch of projects that required a proprietary JDK to be useful to users. I would argue that this was a much stronger case than Joshua's dilemma (face it, just about everyone is ok with LGPL), yet ASF would have been a very different world if Java wasn't allowed. Cheers Niclas On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: While this is all true, there is a key point in the policy that should be considered [1]. “Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding the optional components”? So if a Language Module is required and BerkeleyLM is so substandard that no one will really use it, then you aren’t really achieving what the policy is saying. Ralph [1] - http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional On Jun 20, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: As Ted is hinting, try to make a Joshua specific abstraction of the Language Module, and then provide N implementations. The KenLM implementation could be hosted outside ASF, in case Legal doesn't approve (can't recall the status of that) of using KenLM's published API, and users have to make the separate download of KenLM. Painful, yes somewhat... But I think you could provide a script that does all the work, just make sure that the User is well-informed. Niclas On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. That does sound like a blocker as it stands. Is there any prospect for relicensing? Is the BerkeleyLM package suitable for pulling into the Joshua project so that KenLM becomes an optional dependency? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: 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* -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Licensing Issue
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*
Re: Licensing Issue
While this is all true, there is a key point in the policy that should be considered [1]. “Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding the optional components”? So if a Language Module is required and BerkeleyLM is so substandard that no one will really use it, then you aren’t really achieving what the policy is saying. Ralph [1] - http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional On Jun 20, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: As Ted is hinting, try to make a Joshua specific abstraction of the Language Module, and then provide N implementations. The KenLM implementation could be hosted outside ASF, in case Legal doesn't approve (can't recall the status of that) of using KenLM's published API, and users have to make the separate download of KenLM. Painful, yes somewhat... But I think you could provide a script that does all the work, just make sure that the User is well-informed. Niclas On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. That does sound like a blocker as it stands. Is there any prospect for relicensing? Is the BerkeleyLM package suitable for pulling into the Joshua project so that KenLM becomes an optional dependency? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: 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* -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Licensing Issue
As Ted is hinting, try to make a Joshua specific abstraction of the Language Module, and then provide N implementations. The KenLM implementation could be hosted outside ASF, in case Legal doesn't approve (can't recall the status of that) of using KenLM's published API, and users have to make the separate download of KenLM. Painful, yes somewhat... But I think you could provide a script that does all the work, just make sure that the User is well-informed. Niclas On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. That does sound like a blocker as it stands. Is there any prospect for relicensing? Is the BerkeleyLM package suitable for pulling into the Joshua project so that KenLM becomes an optional dependency? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: 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* -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
RE: Licensing Issue
Hey Lewis, Is it a static dependency on that library? Or simply runtime? I've used Joshua and I think it is a runtime dependency. In this fashion, we could also ask for an exception due to the below. Cheers, Chris From: Lewis John Mcgibbney [lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:50 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Licensing Issue 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* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Licensing Issue
Yes. That does sound like a blocker as it stands. Is there any prospect for relicensing? Is the BerkeleyLM package suitable for pulling into the Joshua project so that KenLM becomes an optional dependency? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: 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*
Licensing Issue
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*
Licensing issue
Hi, I have a question which possibly came up earlier in the past. For me I have no answer. I have started to write a manual for an incubating open source project. (http://ws.apache.org/jaxme) I would like to extend the manual to a general reference on the JAXB specification and JaxMe in particular. Finally I would like to be able to publish this as a book. The obvious question is: How can I do that in compliance with the ASF. My preferred solution would be some kind of double licensing: The manual is still hosted as a part of the usual CVS repository and any updates makes its way into the resulting distribution. But is that compliant with the ASF guidelines? For obvious reasons I would like to reserve publication somehow rights as long as I still believe to finish this work. (We all have dreams, which will never be fulfilled. ;-) An alternative might be, to host the DocBook sources on another repository under a separate license and copy the derived HTML and PDF only from time to time into the Apache repository. Thanks for any hints, Jochen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
