Hi, doesn’t the Wikipedia/creative commons license specify exactly that you can only redistribute under the same/similar license?
I guess the question is whether a trained model is an “adaptation” of the work according to the license. If that’s the case you’re bound to using creative commons, I think. Best, Nils On 29.10.2013, at 16:54, Thomas Zastrow <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I created now a named entity model for German. It is trained on 5.000 > manually annotated sentences and performs - not perfect, but its already > usable. I will go on with more texts. > > I used only texts from Wikipedia and Wikinews, so in my eyes it shouldn't be > a problem to distribute the model. But I'm not sure which license would be a > good choice: OpenNLP uses the Apache license, but Wikipedia is Creative > Commons. On the other hand, because I have the "raw" trained data, it would > be easy to train other NE detectors with the data. > > The OpenNLP page doesn't say anything about the licences of the models which > can be found there already. > > So, what do you think, would be the best license for > > a) > a trained model > > and > > b) > the raw data which is overall Wikipedia content > > ? > > Thanks in advance and best regards, > > Tom > > > -- > Dr. Thomas Zastrow > Riemerfeldring 7a > > 85748 Garching > Tel.: 0162 422 8029 > www.thomas-zastrow.de > >
