Hey Steve, On Aug 1, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Steven Bethard wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >> +1 to making OpenNLP better and eating the ASF dogfood, great response Jörn. > > Also +1 on implementing the Berkeley parsing model in OpenNLP, but > practically speaking, that's a *ton* of work and I don't think anyone is > going to do that any time soon. Jörn, please correct me if I'm wrong. > > What would Apache think about setting things up so that by default the > OpenNLP parser was used, but making it easy to substitute the Berkeley parser > if a downstream user wants to (and can accept the license requirements, and > can add the dependency, etc.)? If the OpenNLP parser is set by default but a user can change if they want to LGPL, that's fine I think. Just as long as the LGPL dep isn't the default, and/or something that a downstream user "really" wants all the time. In that case, e.g., if 98% of your users just throw out the OpenNLP thing and automatically switch to the Berkeley one, then we'd probably have to address that. But sounds good for now. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
