You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ctakes.apache.org by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu> on 2013/01/02 17:10:30 UTC
Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Hi,
We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Thanks,
Pei
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: checking in wiki
Hi team,
I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
Thanks
Tim
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Thanks for the info Ted. I also had the same interpretation but decided to contact the folks at Wikipedia just to make sure- Below was their response.
I am not an attorney, but If I am reading it correctly, I *think* we should be able include it in the project and add the attribution to the NOTICE/LICENSE.
Do you know if this is something that we would be required to get an okay from Apache Legal?
Re: [Ticket#2013010310007005] Creative Commons License and Apache (was: checking in wiki)
Dear Chen Pei,
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.
01/03/2013 16:35 - Chen Pei wrote:
> Dear Licensing@Wikipedia,
> We have an incubator project on the Apache Software Foundation and had
> a
question about reusing content from Wikipedia.
> We built a Lucene index with 5000 wikipedia articles relating to
> medicine. Each
article is modified by reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Would this term count transformation be okay from the Wikipedia license to be including inside an ASL 2.0 project? Is it considered new work or do we need a specific license for this purpose?
>
> Email discussion thread on Apache:
>
http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.legal.discuss#query:%20list%3Aorg.apache.legal.discuss+page:1+mid:ocui6ty64xesc4b4+state:results
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
In principle, all text in Wikipedia is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA) and may be used free of charge for any purpose. Reading more about the license should help explain it in simpler terms:
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> Images and other media files may be subject to other licenses, which can be seen upon clicking on the desired image or file.
A specific permission for reusing the content is not necessary, as long as the re-user observes the license conditions. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use. The only thing that needs to be done is attribution ('BY'), which can simply be a link to the history page of an article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history>,
and re-releasing the content under similar licenses <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike> ('SA').
For more information please see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> or <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse>.
Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteers answering mail to this address provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses.
Yours sincerely,
--
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:38 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
On non-legal-binding precedent is the RCV1 corpus where Reuters agreed that
"Summaries, analyses and interpretations of the linguistic properties of the information may be derived and published provided it is not possible to reconstruct the Data from the summary."
This was part of an agreement, so it has no legal binding, but it does indicate that at least one fairly strict copyright interpreter was OK with the term count transformation.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
<ti...@childrens.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we are
> using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there some
> advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> disqualifies?
A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
specific license from the original content owners.
> Tim
>
> On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>>
>> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
>> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and
>> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
>> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>>
>> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons
>>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu<ma...@childrens.harvard.edu>]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
>>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
>>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
>>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
>>> sufficient to add something like this:
>>>
>>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org<http://en.wikipedia.org>) developed under the Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Thanks for the info Ted. I also had the same interpretation but decided to contact the folks at Wikipedia just to make sure- Below was their response.
I am not an attorney, but If I am reading it correctly, I *think* we should be able include it in the project and add the attribution to the NOTICE/LICENSE.
Do you know if this is something that we would be required to get an okay from Apache Legal?
Re: [Ticket#2013010310007005] Creative Commons License and Apache (was: checking in wiki)
Dear Chen Pei,
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.
01/03/2013 16:35 - Chen Pei wrote:
> Dear Licensing@Wikipedia,
> We have an incubator project on the Apache Software Foundation and had
> a
question about reusing content from Wikipedia.
> We built a Lucene index with 5000 wikipedia articles relating to
> medicine. Each
article is modified by reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Would this term count transformation be okay from the Wikipedia license to be including inside an ASL 2.0 project? Is it considered new work or do we need a specific license for this purpose?
>
> Email discussion thread on Apache:
>
http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.legal.discuss#query:%20list%3Aorg.apache.legal.discuss+page:1+mid:ocui6ty64xesc4b4+state:results
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
In principle, all text in Wikipedia is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA) and may be used free of charge for any purpose. Reading more about the license should help explain it in simpler terms:
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> Images and other media files may be subject to other licenses, which can be seen upon clicking on the desired image or file.
A specific permission for reusing the content is not necessary, as long as the re-user observes the license conditions. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use. The only thing that needs to be done is attribution ('BY'), which can simply be a link to the history page of an article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history>,
and re-releasing the content under similar licenses <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike> ('SA').
For more information please see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> or <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse>.
Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteers answering mail to this address provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses.
Yours sincerely,
--
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:38 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
On non-legal-binding precedent is the RCV1 corpus where Reuters agreed that
"Summaries, analyses and interpretations of the linguistic properties of the information may be derived and published provided it is not possible to reconstruct the Data from the summary."
This was part of an agreement, so it has no legal binding, but it does indicate that at least one fairly strict copyright interpreter was OK with the term count transformation.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
<ti...@childrens.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we are
> using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there some
> advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> disqualifies?
A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
specific license from the original content owners.
> Tim
>
> On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>>
>> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
>> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and
>> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
>> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>>
>> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons
>>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu<ma...@childrens.harvard.edu>]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
>>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
>>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
>>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
>>> sufficient to add something like this:
>>>
>>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org<http://en.wikipedia.org>) developed under the Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On non-legal-binding precedent is the RCV1 corpus where Reuters agreed that
*"Summaries, analyses and interpretations of the linguistic properties
of the information may be derived and published provided it is not possible
to reconstruct the Data from the summary." *
*
*
This was part of an agreement, so it has no legal binding, but it does
indicate that at least one fairly strict copyright interpreter was OK with
the term count transformation.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
> <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we
> are
> > using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> > "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> > wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> > reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there
> some
> > advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> > disqualifies?
>
> A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
> work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
> work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
> specific license from the original content owners.
>
>
> > Tim
> >
> > On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
> >>
> >> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>
> >> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> >> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> >> and
> >> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
> >> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> >> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
> >>
> >> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
> >>
> >> Jörn
> >>
> >> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
> >>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> Commons
> >>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> >>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Pei
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> >>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: checking in wiki
> >>>
> >>> Hi team,
> >>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
> >>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to
> verify
> >>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in
> the next
> >>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is
> it
> >>> sufficient to add something like this:
> >>>
> >>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> >>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> >>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> >>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 01/03/2013 01:33 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
> <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> >The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we are
>> >using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
>> >"Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
>> >wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
>> >reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there some
>> >advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
>> >disqualifies?
> A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
> work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
> work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
> specific license from the original content owners.
>
The answer probably also varies a lot on the legal system of the
country you are in. As far as I know things a stricter in some European
countries since they do not have a fair use clause like in the US.
Media Monitoring companies for example get away by using short
extracts (couple of words or sentences) from news articles and selling
them to their customers as their own work.
Statistical models usually contain much shorter pieces of text, often just
bi- or tri-grams and cannot be used to reconstruct longer pieces of text.
Jörn
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On non-legal-binding precedent is the RCV1 corpus where Reuters agreed that
*"Summaries, analyses and interpretations of the linguistic properties
of the information may be derived and published provided it is not possible
to reconstruct the Data from the summary." *
*
*
This was part of an agreement, so it has no legal binding, but it does
indicate that at least one fairly strict copyright interpreter was OK with
the term count transformation.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
> <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we
> are
> > using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> > "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> > wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> > reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there
> some
> > advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> > disqualifies?
>
> A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
> work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
> work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
> specific license from the original content owners.
>
>
> > Tim
> >
> > On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
> >>
> >> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>
> >> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> >> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> >> and
> >> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
> >> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> >> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
> >>
> >> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
> >>
> >> Jörn
> >>
> >> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
> >>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> Commons
> >>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> >>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Pei
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> >>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: checking in wiki
> >>>
> >>> Hi team,
> >>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
> >>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to
> verify
> >>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in
> the next
> >>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is
> it
> >>> sufficient to add something like this:
> >>>
> >>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> >>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> >>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> >>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
<ti...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we are
> using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there some
> advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> disqualifies?
A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
specific license from the original content owners.
> Tim
>
> On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>>
>> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
>> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and
>> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
>> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>>
>> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons
>>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
>>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
>>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
>>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
>>> sufficient to add something like this:
>>>
>>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Tim Miller
<ti...@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we are
> using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
> "Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
> wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
> reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there some
> advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether it
> disqualifies?
A language model derived from a corpus is not necessarily a derived
work of the corpus. Opinions vary. Some would tell you that it's a new
work entirely, and you own it. Others would tell you that you need a
specific license from the original content owners.
> Tim
>
> On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>>
>> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
>> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and
>> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
>> Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>>
>> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons
>>> Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
>>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
>>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
>>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
>>> sufficient to add something like this:
>>>
>>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Tim Miller <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we
are using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
"Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there
some advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether
it disqualifies?
Tim
On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>
> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
> 2.5 and
> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which
> may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>
> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>
> Jörn
>
> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
>> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pei
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>
>> Hi team,
>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the
>> new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want
>> to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow
>> this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent
>> software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
>>
>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Tim Miller <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
The license is share alike 3.0, the reasons we need advice is because we
are using modified/derived version (the clause in the legal FAQ starts
"Unmodified media..."). Specifically, we built a lucene index with 5000
wikipedia articles relating to medicine. Each article is modified by
reducing it to list of words and their counts in that article. Is there
some advice on whether this sort of modification is allowable or whether
it disqualifies?
Tim
On 01/02/2013 11:28 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>
> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
> 2.5 and
> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which
> may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>
> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>
> Jörn
>
> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
>> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pei
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>
>> Hi team,
>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the
>> new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want
>> to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow
>> this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent
>> software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
>>
>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>
>
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Masanz, James J." <Ma...@mayo.edu>.
That's what I would do. Putting into SVN is different enough from including in a released archive.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ctakes-dev-return-1003-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1003-Masanz.James=mayo.edu@incubator.apache.org]
> On Behalf Of Tim Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:40 PM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
>
> Is it ok to check in like that now and fix it for a release if legal tells
> us different?
>
> On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> > Yup. I think that is the one... Thanks for pointing the FAQ page Joern
> :).
> > Tim-
> > I believe we just need to add the blurb you had below into the NOTICE
> and append the below into the LICENSE (in both src and binary
> distribution) just like the other 3rd party libs.
> > (unless legal-discuss comes back with something else.)
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> >
> > --Pei
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jörn Kottmann [mailto:kottmann@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:29 AM
> >> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
> >>
> >> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>
> >> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> >> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
> >> 2.5 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be
> >> included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution
> >> clauses which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
> >>
> >> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
> >>
> >> Jörn
> >>
> >> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from
> >>> Wikipedia
> >> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> >> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> >>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Pei
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> >>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: checking in wiki
> >>>
> >>> Hi team,
> >>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the
> >>> new
> >> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to
> >> verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow
> >> this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent
> >> software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
> >>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> >>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative
> Commons
> >>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> >>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Tim
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Tim Miller <ti...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Is it ok to check in like that now and fix it for a release if legal
tells us different?
On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> Yup. I think that is the one... Thanks for pointing the FAQ page Joern :).
> Tim-
> I believe we just need to add the blurb you had below into the NOTICE and append the below into the LICENSE (in both src and binary distribution) just like the other 3rd party libs.
> (unless legal-discuss comes back with something else.)
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>
> --Pei
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jörn Kottmann [mailto:kottmann@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:29 AM
>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>>
>> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
>> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
>> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
>> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
>> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>>
>> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
>> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
>> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pei
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
>>> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: checking in wiki
>>>
>>> Hi team,
>>> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
>> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
>> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
>> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
>> sufficient to add something like this:
>>> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
>>> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
>>> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tim
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Yup. I think that is the one... Thanks for pointing the FAQ page Joern :).
Tim-
I believe we just need to add the blurb you had below into the NOTICE and append the below into the LICENSE (in both src and binary distribution) just like the other 3rd party libs.
(unless legal-discuss comes back with something else.)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
--Pei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörn Kottmann [mailto:kottmann@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:29 AM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
>
> Hello,
>
> it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
>
> The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
> "Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
> and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
>
> Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
>
> Jörn
>
> On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> > We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pei
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> > To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: checking in wiki
> >
> > Hi team,
> > I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
> sufficient to add something like this:
> >
> > This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> > Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tim
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
it depends on which CA license the material is licensed under.
The legal FAQ clarifies it for some of them:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
For Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5/3.0 it says:
"Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 and
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in
Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. ...."
Is that the license wikipedia is licensed under?
Jörn
On 01/02/2013 05:10 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> Hi,
> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: checking in wiki
>
> Hi team,
> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
>
> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>
> Thanks
> Tim
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Thanks Dan.
We also noticed the below on the Legal FAQ's: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
"Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC."
Does it also apply to statistical models that are derived from cc-sa work (word counts in an Lucene index)? Seems to be a grey area- but just wanted to double check.
--Pei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s@daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
> To: Chen, Pei
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
>
> "sa" -- "share-alike" so it's likely _not_ Category A.
>
> Chen, Pei wrote on Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 16:10:30 +0000:
> > Hi,
> > We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> > We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pei
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> > To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: checking in wiki
> >
> > Hi team,
> > I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
> sufficient to add something like this:
> >
> > This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> > Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by "Chen, Pei" <Pe...@childrens.harvard.edu>.
Thanks Dan.
We also noticed the below on the Legal FAQ's: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
"Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC."
Does it also apply to statistical models that are derived from cc-sa work (word counts in an Lucene index)? Seems to be a grey area- but just wanted to double check.
--Pei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s@daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
> To: Chen, Pei
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
>
> "sa" -- "share-alike" so it's likely _not_ Category A.
>
> Chen, Pei wrote on Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 16:10:30 +0000:
> > Hi,
> > We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia
> into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative
> Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> > We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pei
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> > To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: checking in wiki
> >
> > Hi team,
> > I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new
> coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify
> what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next
> release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it
> sufficient to add something like this:
> >
> > This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> > Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
"sa" -- "share-alike" so it's likely _not_ Category A.
Chen, Pei wrote on Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 16:10:30 +0000:
> Hi,
> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: checking in wiki
>
> Hi team,
> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
>
> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Creative Commons License (was: checking in wiki)
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
"sa" -- "share-alike" so it's likely _not_ Category A.
Chen, Pei wrote on Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 16:10:30 +0000:
> Hi,
> We would like to check in some derived features/models from Wikipedia into the src code base and would like to double check - are Creative Commons Licenses compatible with ASL 2.0?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> We couldn't find it in the approved 3rd party list: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Miller [mailto:timothy.miller@childrens.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: checking in wiki
>
> Hi team,
> I'm just about ready to check in the wikipedia small index and the new coref features and models that take advantage of them, and I want to verify what changes we need to make to the license/notice to allow this in the next release. The NOTICE section has the dependent software included -- is it sufficient to add something like this:
>
> This product includes contents adapted from the English-language
> Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) developed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>