Yes, that was my understanding as well (that we can include the models). I am not fully understanding where the problem is. --Guergana
-----Original Message----- From: Chen, Pei [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:03 AM To: <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What should we do with cTAKES resources? James, I was under the pretense that we could include the models, but it sounds like it is not the case. We can move every single bin/model to ctakes-resources in Source forge and do a MVN deploy to push it to maven central; like what we did for umls/lvg. I can take a stab at it later this week if no one gets to it (and if there's an agreement). Sent from my iPhone On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:35 AM, "Jörn Kottmann" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/22/2013 04:00 AM, Masanz, James J. wrote: >> Jörn, >> >> Today Benson wrote the following in this post to incubator >> http://s.apache.org/Gz5 "I fear that cTakes needs to have an interaction >> with LEGAL to adopt the SpamAssassin model, since, from a strict >> constructionist perspective, the source of the models is precisely what you >> cannot release." >> >> Is he just unaware of some discussion you already had with LEGAL for >> OpenNLP - I ask because in the discussion below you indicated it >> would be OK to release models at Apache without releasing the data >> the models were built from. Is there some previous post we can point >> to or should I open a discussion with LEGAL about cTAKES models > > I was under the assumption that it is ok the just release the model > and not the training data under AL 2.0 here at Apache, over at UIMA we > had a similar discussion for French POS Tagger (UIMA-2146). There the concern > was that its very cumbersome to train again on the data, but not that it > can't be released. > > To circumvent this particular issue it should be possible to release > the models outside of Apache and then just redistribute them as class A > dependency in the cTAKES binary distribution. > > Jörn
