On 15 July 2014 13:05, Jorge Gracia <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jim, > > 2014-07-15 10:28 GMT+02:00 Jim O'Regan <[email protected]>: >> >> That is not correct. Actually, as I double check, there is nothing in >> apertium-en-es or apertium-en-ca to say 'or later', so there has never >> been a version that could have been relicensed as GPL3 by a third >> party. But as you go on to say, your work is based on the LMF >> conversion, so it's their ability to read a licence that's at fault, >> not yours :) > > > Just to be sure, are the license terms and authorship in > http://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/17110?show=full correct?
The licence is incorrect, but it's not wrong enough to be worth the time and trouble to chase down someone who can fix it. (If they had listed it as something obnoxious, like cc-by-nc, then it would). The authors list for this, and for en-ca's conversion, are about as right as they can be. It's not exactly true that anyone listed there was an author of the LMF version[1], but it's not false either. [1] That is, nobody who contributed to apertium-en-es had any involvement with this (non-faithful) derivative (anyone who so chose would be within their rights under the Berne Convention to demand not to be misidentified as an author of the LMF version). > Notice also that our resource points also to the Metashare metadata (here in > an RDF version: > http://purl.org/ms-lod/UPF-MetadataRecords.ttl#Apertium-en-es_resource-5v2) I'm pretty sure that's a one-way dump, but I've submitted a correction to my own details, and depending on what happens with that, I may try to find the time to correct the authorship errors on some of the other conversions. Thanks for the link! >> I was referring to the dump - none of this is present in the zip file >> linked to from the datahub. As this is the only form where a >> derivative work is unquestionably distributed, it is the only form >> where including the GPL is unquestionably required. > > > Separating metadata from data is a common practice when documenting LD > datasets (see for instance the dumps of DBpedia). Nevertheless, I see no > reason why not including the DCAT file in the dump as well, I can make it in > the next update. > Great! >> Again, not present in the dump. Unless the dataset is insanely large, >> I generally prefer to download it than to throttle someone else's >> server :) > > > Please check it better, provenance information is in the dump as well (just > look for dc:source clauses) Ah, so it is. My mistake, though I can't understand why searching for the URI didn't work. >> I'd argue that converting 'np' to lexinfo:noun (instead of >> lexinfo:properNoun) _is_ a loss of information[1], but now I know it's >> based on the LMF conversion, I know where the loss happened (and, >> also, I like to nitpick). >> > > You are right, thanks for pointing this out! In fact our converter is > missing the track of proper nouns. I'll fix this in the next update. While you're at it, it's lexinfo:adjective, not lexinfo:adjetive -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
