Many thanks for your message, as I'm sure you appreciate, we also take free/open-source software and licensing very seriously, otherwise we wouldn't have gone through such a long email exchange to obtain clarification.
Best wishes, Fran El ds 23 de 01 de 2010 a les 10:22 -0500, en/na Alan W Black va escriure: > Fran, > > The license we include is a standard CMU license that we have used for a > number of our open source speech products over the last ten years, the > license has been checked by a number of different legal groups both > within and outside CMU. The additional clause 5 has been added due to a > requirement and respect to the original groups involved in the > collections. Although we are aware that some groups may only use the > data if it follows some existing predefined license that they own legal > group has approved, we do not see it necessary to change our license > when we have already had it vetted by a large number of groups. > > If this license does not satisfy your particular requirements then > unfortunately this data cannot be used by you. That is a decision that > all developers make when choosing to use external resources. > > At CMU we take open source and licensing very seriously and choose the > license conditions based on what we decide will give the maximum benefit > for the potential user groups, without compromising our funding sources > and collaborators. It requires hard decisions and negotiations in order > to please as many groups as we can. In doing so we cannot always please > everyone all the time, but that is in the nature of licenses. > > We are fully aware of the consequences of adding clause 5, which we do > not have on much of our open source releases, but we still decided that > was the best option given the data that we have. We knew that this > would exclude some people from being able to use the data, but we still > made that decision. > > Alan > > Alan W Black email: a...@cs.cmu.edu > Associate Professor > Language Technologies Institute http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/ > Carnegie Mellon University tel: +1-412-268-6299 > 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh PA, 15213, USA. fax: +1-412-268-6298 > > > Robert Frederking wrote: > > 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: mt-list@eamt.org 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