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

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 partic

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> wrot

RE: Licensing Issue

bbney [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 conversati

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

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

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 plugi

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 Joh

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 . If you mean

RE: Licensing Issue

sert 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: Lic

Re: Licensing Issue

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 th

RE: Licensing Issue

even in a derivative, will be quite unfortunate. - Dennis 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

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

Re: Licensing Issue

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Ted Dunning 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 --

Re: Licensing Issue

What do you think I meant? Am 26.06.2015 08:51 schrieb "Ted Dunning" : > 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 i

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

Re: Licensing Issue

I will personally abolish copyright. Join the future. unlicense.org Am 27.06.2015 19:09 schrieb "Ted Dunning" : > 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 als

Re: Licensing Issue

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Stefan Reich 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 curre

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 a

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" : > 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 > provid