uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA Ruta 2.4.0 RC3
Date Tue, 09 Feb 2016 09:24:22 GMT
He crawled it from this site [1] and then he modified the result by
removing entries or single letters.

I do not see any license notice. Is this a good or bad sign for us?

IANAL (and actually do not know much about it) but I would assume that
it is not problematic. There is no specific source file and the owner
probably cannot call copyright for single firstnames.

Best,

Peter

[1] http://www.vornamen-liste.de/

Am 09.02.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Peter Klügl:
> I additionally sent an email to the last address I know.
>
> Am 08.02.2016 um 22:26 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>> The problem I see is that we currently do not know where the file comes from
>> (provenance). I find it hard to believe that the file was an original creation
>> from Stefan. I believe that it could take quite some time to compile such a
>> list of names. More likely is in my opinion, that the file was obtained from
>> some third-party source. 
>>
>> If we knew that third-party source, we might easily be able to clear IP.
>>
>> Since we do not know it, we currently have to resort to speculation about the
>> lawfulness of compiling specialized unigram lists.
>>
>> It looks like we can agree this is not a blocker for the present release as
>> involved risk is apparently very low. Still, we should try to clear this.
>>
>> I've placed a comment on UIMA-3926 asking Stefan to shed some light on the
>> provenance of the file. Let's see what comes of it.
>>
>> Thanks for digging up the issue number Marschall!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>>
>>> On 08.02.2016, at 21:56, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, first I'd like to summarize, in case I don't fully understand the issue.
>>>
>>> Ruta contains some examples; the example data include 90K file FirstNames.txt,
>>> in example-projects/GermanNovels/reosources.
>>>
>>> From what I can see, there are no actual German Novels included in the
>>> example-project/GermanNovels.
>>>
>>> From the discussion, it seems the word lists were not originally part of the
>>> contribution; but a comment in UIMA-3926 Peter asks if the word list could be
>>> contributed, but not the novels, and Stefan then contributed them.
>>>
>>> I am not a lawyer, so this is not a legal opinion, but I did a quick internet
>>> search and believe that compiling a list of words used in a novel does not
>>> infringe the copyright in that novel, because this data is entirely independent
>>> of the expressive value of any of the underlying sources that might have been
>>> used to compile the list; and the list has lost any similarity to the underlying
>>> sources in terms of things like plot, theme, etc.
>>>
>>> So I think the risk is low.  We could probably reduce the risk by asking Stephan
>>> where these lists came from, and if he is aware of any IP issues with them.
>>>
>>> To the extent that we collect information and form opinions on issues like this,
>>> I recommend adding a file to the SVN, not necessarily included in the build,
>>> called something like license-notice-research.txt, just to record these things
>>> in one place, so we can find it quickly if a question comes up later and we want
>>> to remember what and why we did something.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/8/2016 5:21 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.2016, at 11:11, Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>>> Am 08.02.2016 um 10:44 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>>>> On 08.02.2016, at 10:11, Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 07.02.2016 um 19:52 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>>>>>> Checks:
>>>>>>>> - compared POMs in 2.3.0 svn tag against 2.4.0 tag: no new
dependencies - OK
>>>>>>>> - the FirstNames.txt file in GermanNovels is quite large
90k, but no source info/license for this file is given anywhere: doesn't seem OK
>>>>>>>> - stopping checks at this point for the moment
>>>>>>> What kind of source info/license would you expect? The file together
>>>>>>> with the other files was contributed as part of UIMA-3926 with
an ICLA
>>>>>>> present. I do not remember if I knew the source of the file by
then, but
>>>>>>> I remember that I had some conversations with the contributor
that the
>>>>>>> files need to be OK for a contribution. That's the reason why
the
>>>>>>> test/dev data was not contributed since it had some CC license
that was
>>>>>>> problematic.
>>>>>> The other dev/test data doesn't seem problematic at all, but the
90k names
>>>>>> file seems non-trivial. If it were CC, the license would need to
be mentioned
>>>>>> in a LICENSE.txt file. My suggestion would be to simply strip the
file down
>>>>>> to the names needed for the example.
>>>>> If I have to guess I'd say that the names have been crawled and that
>>>>> there is no original source file with a specific license.
>>>>>
>>>>> The novels had the CC license last time I checked. I do not remember
>>>>> all, but when I looked it up in Apache's third party pages, it indicated
>>>>> that it was not possible to include them. However, I could have been
wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm... it depends what is needed for the example. The initial example
>>>>> were 10-20 novels. I could strip it down to the firstnames of one novel
>>>>> I remember to be part of the dev set, but is that really necessary?
>>>> Let's see what Marshall thinks about it.
>>>>
>>>> -- Richard


Mime
View raw message