Has Penn said explicitly that they'll never release the Treebank under
an open license?

jds

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM, James Kosin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/19/2012 2:07 AM, Lance Norskog wrote:
>> What is the legitimacy of data which is tagged using an encumbered
>> model? I mean, if I tag documents with OpenNLP's non-free models on
>> sourceforge, the tagged output is a "derived work". Is this tagged
>> output considered free? Does this depend on the license of the
>> original data?
>>
>>
> Lance,
>
> The problem is two-fold.
>
> (1)  We would like to distribute the models on Apache.  Unfortunately,
> to do so would mean the models and source used to create the models
> would have to be under the Apache license to be distributed.  We don't
> see any way around this than to generate our own training data with an
> open license compatible with the Apache license.
>   Jorn is getting the groundwork done for this with the tagging server
> to allow us to hand-tag and correct data for our own training data.  I
> know it is re-doing work that already has been done; but, the benefits
> will be large in the long run.  Anyone could download the training data
> and add/remove/etc all they want to customize the training set to
> various situations without the worry of a copyright issue.
>   The down side, we have a lot of work to do to get there.
>
> (2)  The models themselves although available on sourceforge are for
> research purposes ONLY.  The copyright and contract with those holding
> the copyright for the original works have stated so.  I've asked many on
> this point.  We are not helping by breaking the law on this, nor do we
> suggest anyone to do this.
>   The next problem is we can't distribute the training data for the
> models.... so, modifications to the models are next to impossible to add
> training for other situations.  The data used to train are mainly from
> news sources and that limits some of the usefulness for some.
>
> .....
> I guess I'll have to get the FAQ section on our web-site done soon.
>
> Thanks,
> James

Reply via email to