My last message was based on labeling inside the Moses source. Based on
the Moses home page http://statmt.org/moses page, "Moses is licensed
under the LGPL." with a link to: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html.
Moses is also a combined work, so section 4 "Combined Works" applies.
Section 2 under that license states:
2. Conveying Modified Versions.
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a
facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an
Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed
when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the
modified version:
* a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith
effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not
supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and
performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or
* b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of
this License applicable to that copy.
Lane, I agree that the copyright owner(s), and only the owners whoever
they are, can agree to publish a module (like the tokenizer) under
another license. In that case, a new fork is published under the new
license but it does not revoke the master's original license. The two
separate forks are simultaneously published and licensed separately. Any
changes the owners make to the new fork must be applied regressively the
master under the original license. Any changes made by any non-own to
any fork must be republished under the respective license for that fork.
Labeling a module with multiple license terms has been done, but creates
huge complications. There are likely conflicts that, if it were
contested, a court could invalidate all licensing.
Ken, ownership is tricky. It's governed by different sovereign laws. The
laws in the USA are different than the laws in Thailand, which may be
different from those in the UK. In most cases I know of, a contract's IP
assignment clause declares who owns the work-for-hire. If ownership is
not assigned in the contract, the respective law kicks in. The law in
the USA assigns ownership to the author if the author is an independent
contractor, and assigns ownership to the employer if the author is an
employee. The law in Thailand is exactly the opposite. It assigns
ownership to the employee if the author is an employee, and assigns
ownership to the employer if the author is an independent contractor. I
do not know the laws in the UK. The only clear path is to assign
ownership in the work-for-hire contract. That's why I recommended that
someone check with the University's intellectual property office.
All that said and regardless of ownership, you're safe to act on your
own when you publish change under the license terms of the fork you
changed. That's the heart-and-soul of open source licensing.
Tom
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 04:03:05 +0800
From: liling tan<alvati...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Moses-support] Dual Licensing or relicensing Moses
To: Matt Post<p...@cs.jhu.edu>
Cc: moses-support<moses-support@mit.edu>
Do note that I did receive a "no" from one of them so I'm not exactly sure
whether everyone's "yes" will change the "no".
Meanwhile, I think it's shouldn't be a problem since the Python port of
Moses' tokenizer does exist separately.
Users just have to make sure that they don't mix it up with more permissive
license when redistributing code.
Regards,
Liling
_______________________________________________
Moses-support mailing list
Moses-support@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
