Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[Matt Post]

Seems worth a shot. I suggest contacting each of them with individual emails 
until (and if) you get a “no”. 

matt (from my phone)

> Le 10 avr. 2018 à 19:26, liling tan  a écrit :
> 
> @Matt I'm not sure whether that'll work.
> 
> 
> For tokenizer, that'll include:
>  
>  phikoehn
>  hieuhoang
>  bhaddow
>  jimregan
>  kpu
>  ugermann
>  pjwilliams
>  jgwinnup
>  mhuck
>  tofula
>  a455bcd9
> 
> And these for the detokenizer:
> 
> 
>  phikoehn
>  flammie
>  hieuhoang
>  pjwilliams
>  bhaddow
>  alvations
> 
> 
> Not sure if everyone agrees though.
> 
> Regards,
> Liling
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Matt Post  wrote:
>> Liling—Would it work to get the permission of just those people who are in 
>> the commit log of the specific scripts you want to port?
>> 
>> matt (from my phone)
>> 
>>> Le 10 avr. 2018 à 18:19, liling tan  a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Got it. 
>>> 
>>> So I think we'll just remove the MosesTokenizer and MosesDetokenizer 
>>> function from NLTK and maybe create a PR to put it in 
>>> mosesdecoder/scripts/tokenizer 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the clarification!
>>> Liling
>>> 
 On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
 Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need everyone's 
 permission, not just mine. So no
 
 Hieu Hoang
 http://moses-smt.org/
 
 
> On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan  wrote:
> I understand. 
> 
> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with 
> respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an 
> MIT/Apache tool? 
> 
> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having mutual 
> agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of LGPL 
> work until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's safe 
> to back off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code. 
> 
> Regards,
> Liling
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
>> we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement 
>> of everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work 
>> 
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:
>>> Dear Moses Dev,
>>> 
>>> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer 
>>> works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users 
>>> to the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone. 
>>> 
>>> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues. 
>>> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000 
>>> 
>>> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible 
>>> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative 
>>> from being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than 
>>> non-copyleft license like Apache and MIT licenses. 
>>> 
>>> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT 
>>> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users 
>>> can chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have 
>>> any dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that 
>>> none of our models built with Marian would work without the Moses 
>>> tokenizer which is in LGPL). 
>>> 
>>> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with 
>>> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to 
>>> have dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might 
>>> have to check with some proper legal personnel though.
>>> 
>>> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code 
>>> under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for 
>>> derivatiive work?
>>> 
>>> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses 
>>> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove 
>>> the synergy between various OSS. 
>>> 
>>> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Liling
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Moses-support mailing list
>>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Moses-support mailing list
>>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
> 
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[liling tan]

@Matt I'm not sure whether that'll work.


For tokenizer, that'll include:


   - [image: @phikoehn] phikoehn 
   - [image: @hieuhoang] hieuhoang 
   - [image: @bhaddow] bhaddow 
   - [image: @jimregan] jimregan 
   - [image: @kpu] kpu 
   - [image: @ugermann] ugermann 
   - [image: @pjwilliams] pjwilliams 
   - [image: @jgwinnup] jgwinnup 
   - [image: @mhuck] mhuck 
   - [image: @tofula] tofula 
   - [image: @a455bcd9] a455bcd9 


And these for the detokenizer:

-
[image: @phikoehn] phikoehn 
- [image: @flammie] flammie 
- [image: @hieuhoang] hieuhoang 
- [image: @pjwilliams] pjwilliams 
- [image: @bhaddow] bhaddow 
- [image: @alvations] alvations 

Not sure if everyone agrees though.

Regards,
Liling

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Matt Post  wrote:

> Liling—Would it work to get the permission of just those people who are in
> the commit log of the specific scripts you want to port?
>
> matt (from my phone)
>
> Le 10 avr. 2018 à 18:19, liling tan  a écrit :
>
> Got it.
>
> So I think we'll just remove the MosesTokenizer and MosesDetokenizer
> function from NLTK and maybe create a PR to put it in mosesdecoder/scripts/
> tokenizer
>
> Thank you for the clarification!
> Liling
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
>
>> Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need everyone's
>> permission, not just mine. So no
>>
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>>
>>
>> On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan  wrote:
>>
>>> I understand.
>>>
>>> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with
>>> respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an
>>> MIT/Apache tool?
>>>
>>> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having
>>> mutual agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of
>>> LGPL work until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's
>>> safe to back off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Liling
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement
 of everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work

 Hieu Hoang
 http://moses-smt.org/


 On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:

> Dear Moses Dev,
>
> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer
> works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to
> the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone.
>
> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000
>
> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible
> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from
> being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft
> license like Apache and MIT licenses.
>
> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
> chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of 
> our
> models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is 
> in
> LGPL).
>
> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with
> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have
> dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to
> check with some proper legal personnel though.
>
> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the
> code under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for
> derivatiive work?
>
> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses
> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove 
> the
> synergy between various OSS.
>
> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>
> Regards,
> Liling
>
>
>
> ___
> Moses-support mailing list
> Moses-support@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>
>

>>>
>>
> ___
> Moses-support mailing list
> Moses-support@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinf

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[Kenneth Heafield]

Looks like 19 people when the nonbreaking_prefixes is included and
multiple e-mail addresses for the same person are collapsed.

git log tokenizer.perl ../share/nonbreaking_prefixes/* |grep Author |sort -u

Some of whom have invalid e-mail addresses, but can probably be tracked
down.

Kenneth

On 04/10/2018 05:39 PM, Matt Post wrote:
> Liling—Would it work to get the permission of just those people who are
> in the commit log of the specific scripts you want to port?
> 
> matt (from my phone)
> 
> Le 10 avr. 2018 à 18:19, liling tan  > a écrit :
> 
>> Got it. 
>>
>> So I think we'll just remove the MosesTokenizer and MosesDetokenizer
>> function from NLTK and maybe create a PR to put it in
>> mosesdecoder/scripts/tokenizer 
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification!
>> Liling
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Hieu Hoang > > wrote:
>>
>> Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need
>> everyone's permission, not just mine. So no
>>
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>>
>>
>> On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan > > wrote:
>>
>> I understand. 
>>
>> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from
>> Moses with respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other
>> scripts under an MIT/Apache tool? 
>>
>> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth,
>> having mutual agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still
>> keep any port of LGPL work until someone starts to enforce
>> legal actions and I think it's safe to back off to taking down
>> these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code. 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liling
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang
>> mailto:hieuho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> we can't change the license, or dual license it, without
>> the agreement of everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too
>> much work
>>
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>>
>>
>> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan > > wrote:
>>
>> Dear Moses Dev,
>>
>> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses.
>> The tokenizer works well in Python and create a good
>> synergy to bridge Python users to the code that Moses
>> developers have spent years to hone. 
>>
>> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing
>> issues. https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000
>>  
>>
>> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and
>> is incompatible with Apache or MIT license. I
>> understand that LGPL keeps derivative from being
>> proprietary but it's a little less permissive than
>> non-copyleft license like Apache and MIT licenses. 
>>
>> Note that this licensing issue might also affect
>> Marian which is MIT license and also incompatible with
>> LGPL so although technically users can chain the code
>> from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
>> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do
>> know that none of our models built with Marian would
>> work without the Moses tokenizer which is in LGPL). 
>>
>> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses
>> repository with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm
>> not sure whether it's allowed to have dual licenses
>> with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might
>> have to check with some proper legal personnel though.
>>
>> If dual license is not possible would it be possible
>> relicense the code under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That
>> way it's more permissive for derivatiive work?
>>
>> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the
>> Python port of Moses code entirely from Apache license
>> repository but I think that'll remove the synergy
>> between various OSS. 
>>
>> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liling
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Moses-support mailing list
>> Moses-support@mit.edu 
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Moses-support mailing list
>

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[Matt Post]

Liling—Would it work to get the permission of just those people who are in the 
commit log of the specific scripts you want to port?

matt (from my phone)

> Le 10 avr. 2018 à 18:19, liling tan  a écrit :
> 
> Got it. 
> 
> So I think we'll just remove the MosesTokenizer and MosesDetokenizer function 
> from NLTK and maybe create a PR to put it in mosesdecoder/scripts/tokenizer 
> 
> Thank you for the clarification!
> Liling
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
>> Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need everyone's 
>> permission, not just mine. So no
>> 
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan  wrote:
>>> I understand. 
>>> 
>>> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with 
>>> respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an 
>>> MIT/Apache tool? 
>>> 
>>> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having mutual 
>>> agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of LGPL work 
>>> until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's safe to back 
>>> off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code. 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Liling
>>> 
 On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
 we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement of 
 everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work 
 
 Hieu Hoang
 http://moses-smt.org/
 
 
> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:
> Dear Moses Dev,
> 
> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer 
> works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to 
> the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone. 
> 
> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues. 
> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000 
> 
> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible 
> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from 
> being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft 
> license like Apache and MIT licenses. 
> 
> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT 
> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can 
> chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any 
> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of 
> our models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which 
> is in LGPL). 
> 
> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with 
> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to 
> have dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might 
> have to check with some proper legal personnel though.
> 
> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code 
> under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for 
> derivatiive work?
> 
> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses 
> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove 
> the synergy between various OSS. 
> 
> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
> 
> Regards,
> Liling
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Moses-support mailing list
> Moses-support@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Moses-support mailing list
> Moses-support@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[liling tan]

Got it.

So I think we'll just remove the MosesTokenizer and MosesDetokenizer
function from NLTK and maybe create a PR to put it in
mosesdecoder/scripts/tokenizer

Thank you for the clarification!
Liling

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:

> Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need everyone's
> permission, not just mine. So no
>
> Hieu Hoang
> http://moses-smt.org/
>
>
> On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan  wrote:
>
>> I understand.
>>
>> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with
>> respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an
>> MIT/Apache tool?
>>
>> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having mutual
>> agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of LGPL work
>> until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's safe to back
>> off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liling
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
>>
>>> we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement
>>> of everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work
>>>
>>> Hieu Hoang
>>> http://moses-smt.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:
>>>
 Dear Moses Dev,

 NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer
 works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to
 the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone.

 But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
 https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000

 General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible
 with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from
 being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft
 license like Apache and MIT licenses.

 Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
 license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
 chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
 dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of our
 models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is in
 LGPL).

 Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with
 LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have
 dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to
 check with some proper legal personnel though.

 If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code
 under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for derivatiive
 work?

 I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses
 code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove the
 synergy between various OSS.

 Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!

 Regards,
 Liling



 ___
 Moses-support mailing list
 Moses-support@mit.edu
 http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support


>>>
>>
>
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[Hieu Hoang]

Still the same problem - everyone owns Moses so you need everyone's
permission, not just mine. So no

Hieu Hoang
http://moses-smt.org/


On 10 April 2018 at 17:13, liling tan  wrote:

> I understand.
>
> Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with
> respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an
> MIT/Apache tool?
>
> Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having mutual
> agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of LGPL work
> until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's safe to back
> off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code.
>
> Regards,
> Liling
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:
>
>> we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement of
>> everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work
>>
>> Hieu Hoang
>> http://moses-smt.org/
>>
>>
>> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Moses Dev,
>>>
>>> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer
>>> works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to
>>> the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone.
>>>
>>> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
>>> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000
>>>
>>> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible
>>> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from
>>> being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft
>>> license like Apache and MIT licenses.
>>>
>>> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
>>> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
>>> chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
>>> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of our
>>> models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is in
>>> LGPL).
>>>
>>> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with
>>> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have
>>> dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to
>>> check with some proper legal personnel though.
>>>
>>> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code
>>> under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for derivatiive
>>> work?
>>>
>>> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses
>>> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove the
>>> synergy between various OSS.
>>>
>>> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Liling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Moses-support mailing list
>>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[liling tan]

I understand.

Could we have permission that it's okay to derive work from Moses with
respect to the (de-)tokenizer and possibly other scripts under an
MIT/Apache tool?

Legally it's a restriction but I think for what's it worth, having mutual
agreement between the OSS is sufficient to still keep any port of LGPL work
until someone starts to enforce legal actions and I think it's safe to back
off to taking down these functionalities in the Apache/MIT code.

Regards,
Liling

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Hieu Hoang  wrote:

> we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement of
> everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work
>
> Hieu Hoang
> http://moses-smt.org/
>
>
> On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:
>
>> Dear Moses Dev,
>>
>> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer
>> works well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to
>> the code that Moses developers have spent years to hone.
>>
>> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
>> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000
>>
>> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible
>> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from
>> being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft
>> license like Apache and MIT licenses.
>>
>> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
>> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
>> chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
>> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of our
>> models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is in
>> LGPL).
>>
>> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with
>> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have
>> dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to
>> check with some proper legal personnel though.
>>
>> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code
>> under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for derivatiive
>> work?
>>
>> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses
>> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove the
>> synergy between various OSS.
>>
>> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Liling
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Moses-support mailing list
>> Moses-support@mit.edu
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>>
>>
>
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[Hieu Hoang]

we can't change the license, or dual license it, without the agreement of
everyone who's contributed to Moses. Too much work

Hieu Hoang
http://moses-smt.org/


On 10 April 2018 at 15:47, liling tan  wrote:

> Dear Moses Dev,
>
> NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer works
> well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to the code
> that Moses developers have spent years to hone.
>
> But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
> https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000
>
> General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible
> with Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from
> being proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft
> license like Apache and MIT licenses.
>
> Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
> license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
> chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
> dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of our
> models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is in
> LGPL).
>
> Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with
> LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have
> dual licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to
> check with some proper legal personnel though.
>
> If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code
> under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for derivatiive
> work?
>
> I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses
> code entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove the
> synergy between various OSS.
>
> Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!
>
> Regards,
> Liling
>
>
>
> ___
> Moses-support mailing list
> Moses-support@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
>
>
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support

[Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses

[liling tan]

Dear Moses Dev,

NLTK has a Python port of the word tokenizer in Moses. The tokenizer works
well in Python and create a good synergy to bridge Python users to the code
that Moses developers have spent years to hone.

But it seemed to have hit a wall with some licensing issues.
https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/2000

General port of LGPL code is considered derivative and is incompatible with
Apache or MIT license. I understand that LGPL keeps derivative from being
proprietary but it's a little less permissive than non-copyleft license
like Apache and MIT licenses.

Note that this licensing issue might also affect Marian which is MIT
license and also incompatible with LGPL so although technically users can
chain the code from different libraries, but Marian couldn't have any
dependencies on the Moses components. (But we know do know that none of our
models built with Marian would work without the Moses tokenizer which is in
LGPL).

Would there be a possibility to dual license the Moses repository with LGPL
and Apache/BSD/MIT license. I'm not sure whether it's allowed to have dual
licenses with LGPL and Apache/BSD/MIT license though. Might have to check
with some proper legal personnel though.

If dual license is not possible would it be possible relicense the code
under BSD/Apache/MIT license? That way it's more permissive for derivatiive
work?

I think the last scenario is for NLTK to drop the Python port of Moses code
entirely from Apache license repository but I think that'll remove the
synergy between various OSS.

Hope to hear from Moses devs soon!

Regards,
Liling
___
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support