That is one reason for choosing a well known non-copyleft licence, like: * BSD 2 or 3-clause licence * X11 Licence * Zlib licence
These are non-copyleft, but they _are_ GPL compatible, which means both companies _and_ free software developers can work with them. There is a list on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licenses Take a look at the ones which are "non-Copyleft" and "GPL compatible". Fran El ds 23 de 01 de 2010 a les 10:07 -0500, en/na Robert Frederking va escriure: > Well, my understanding is that, unfortunately, most companies won't > touch anything that's under GPL, so I don't think that's a solution. > We don't want to exclude commercial entities. > > Bob > > Francis Tyers wrote: > > First of all, thanks to CMU for releasing the data. I've no doubt it > > will be valuable to people working in the field. > > > > I don't particularly like terms like "lawyerbomb" and "obnoxious > > advertising clause", but this merits a response. > > > > People who don't get paid to work on the software they develop, aren't > > employed by big universities or companies are understandably concerned > > about getting sued -- you can say "but they've never been sued before, > > so why should they worry" -- but this isn't really convincing. They can > > get frustrated that people make more work for themselves and others. > > > > * Making up your own 'free/open-source' licence: > > More work for you, more work for them. > > > > * Choosing an existing tried and tested 'free/open-source' licence: > > Less work for you, less work for them. > > > > Furthermore, they can also find it frustrating that a non-profit > > organisation would release their work under a licence that is > > incompatible with that of over 60% of free software.[1] > > > > Fran > > > > PS. Some of these same issues are reviewed in Ted Pedersen's excellent > > 2008 article: > > http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse/Pubs/pedersen-last-word-2008.pdf > > > > =Notes= > > > > 1. http://www.blackducksoftware.com/oss/licenses#top20 > > > > El dv 22 de 01 de 2010 a les 18:29 -0500, en/na Job M. van Zuijlen va > > escriure: > > > > > Some of the verbiage used in this discussion (lawyer bomb...) doesn't > > > particularly encourage people to make their data freely available. > > > What happened to common sense? I think CMU's initiative should be > > > commended. > > > > > > Job van Zuijlen > > > > > > > > > From: Robert Frederking > > > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 16:32 > > > To: Francis Tyers > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Mt-list] Public release of Haitian Creole language data > > > byCarnegie Mellon > > > > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but let me start by stating that out intent was > > > simply that re-use included acknowledgement. This was not intended to > > > be a splash-screen on every start-up, or making the software pronounce > > > our names at the start of every sentence. :-) It only has to be > > > "clearly visible" in anyone's source files. > > > > > > We aren't interested in suing people; we are a non-profit research > > > organization. But like the Regents in California, we have a > > > responsibility to our sponsors that appropriate credit is given for > > > our work. So this is intended to be like the old BSD advertising > > > clause, which is generally considered to be clear from a legal point > > > of view. > > > > > > Please use the data however you want; just don't say you originally > > > collected it. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > Francis Tyers wrote: > > > > > > > [ Sorry in advance for cross posting ] > > > > > > > > I'm going over this on the debian-legal mailing list (a good place to > > > > ask about issues in free/open-source software licensing). > > > > > > > > There is a question about clause 5 of the licence: > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ## 5. Any commercial, public or published work that uses this data > > > > ## > > > > ## must contain a clearly visible acknowledgment as to the > > > > ## > > > > ## provenance of the data. > > > > ## > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >From debian-legal: > > > > > > > > My concern is whether, contrary to the favourable interpretation you > > > > give, this is intended to act like an obnoxious advertising clause. > > > > > > > > In other words, what will satisfy “contain” in “contain a clearly > > > > visible acknowledgement”? Is it sufficient for the acknowledgement to > > > > be “clearly visible” only after inspecting various files in the source > > > > code? > > > > > > > > Or is the copyright holder's intent that the acknowledgement be clearly > > > > visible to every recipient, even those who receive a non-source form of > > > > the work? The latter would be a non-free restriction, like the > > > > obnoxious advertising clause in the older BSD licenses. > > > > > > > > This looks, as it is currently worded, more like a lawyerbomb now that > > > > I consider it. I would appreciate input on this from legally-trained > > > > minds. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Could you confirm if that clause means that the acknowledgement should > > > > be _clearly visible_ to _every recipient_ or would it suffice to be > > > > visible after inspecting the source code? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help in this and best regards, > > > > > > > > Francis Tyers > > > > > > > > > > > > El dj 21 de 01 de 2010 a les 22:59 -0500, en/na Alon Lavie va escriure: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Francis, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, but we were advised to leave the licensing > > > > > language as is. Our licensing language is effectively equivalent to > > > > > the > > > > > MIT license.and is unambiguous with respect to releasing the data for > > > > > any use (commercial or non-commercial). > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - *Alon* > > > > > > > > > > Francis Tyers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El dj 21 de 01 de 2010 a les 14:49 -0500, en/na Robert Frederking va > > > > > > escriure: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Language Technologies Institute (LTI) of Carnegie Mellon > > > > > > > University's > > > > > > > School of Computer Science (CMU SCS) is making publicly available > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Haitian Creole spoken and text data that we have collected or > > > > > > > produced. We > > > > > > > are providing this data with minimal restrictions in order to > > > > > > > allow others to develop language technology for Haiti, in > > > > > > > parallel with our > > > > > > > own efforts to help with this crisis. Since organizing the data > > > > > > > in a useful > > > > > > > fashion is not instantaneous, and more text data is currently > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > produced > > > > > > > by collaborators, we will be publishing the data incrementally on > > > > > > > the web, > > > > > > > as it becomes available. To access the currently available data, > > > > > > > please > > > > > > > visit the website at http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/haitian/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you consider also dual/triple licensing the data under an > > > > > > existing > > > > > > free software licence, such as the MIT licence[1] or the GNU GPL[2] > > > > > > ? > > > > > > This way it could be combined with existing data under these > > > > > > licences > > > > > > (e.g. the majority of free/open-source software) and researchers and > > > > > > developers don't need to hire legal advice to determine if they can > > > > > > combine their work with yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fran > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Licence#License_terms > > > > > > 2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Mt-list mailing list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mt-list mailing list > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mt-list mailing list > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mt-list mailing list > > > > _______________________________________________ Mt-list mailing list
