Support #675

questions about licence

Added by Montserrat Marimon 5 months ago. Updated 4 months ago.

Status:NewStart date:01 February 2018
Priority:HighDue date:
Assignee:Thomas Margoni% Done:

50%

Category:-

Description

Hi,

We've received the following email concerning licences. Could you please help?

Montserrat.-

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear team members of the OpenMinTeD Project

Last Friday we sent some proposals of components, and we proposed the AGPL license for most of them. We received some feedback from you that this license is too much restrictive as it could force the full system to be published under the AGPL license. For this reason we can change the licenses of some of the modules to a less restrictive licenses but taking into account the licenses of the components that we integrate.
For the different modules the licenses proposed would be:

  • BabelNet Concept extractor. Our component can be published under the Apache  Software License 2.0 (ASL) but BabelNet itself is limited to noncommercial use
  • Acronym Detection. This component does not have any restriction and we would provide it with the GPL license (as it is integrated with GATE with the same license)
  • Word Sense Disambiguation: This component would be published with an ASL license except some parts that are under GPL as the original modules from DKPro. This license affects the source code but some language resources may have more  restrictive licenses.
  • Weka integration: This module would be published with the GPL license to  allow its integration with Weka.
  • FreeLing Integration: FreeLing is released under the AGPL and forces our component to be released with a compatible license. Our code can be released under a less restrictive license like the GPL V3.0. If OpenMintTeD team gets FreeLing under a less restrictive license then our component could be adapted to this license for example an ASL license (We are in contact with Lluís Padró to check up to which extend the AGPL would affect the full platform)
  • DbPedia Spotlight integration with UIMA and:  We would use the  ASL 2.0 for our software but some of the components of the DbPedia Spolight have other licenses (GPL)
  • DBpedia and DBpedia Spotlight For Catalan: We would use the ASL 2.0 for our software but some of the components of the DbPedia Spolight have other licenses (GPL)

History

#1 Updated by Giulia Dore 4 months ago

  • % Done changed from 0 to 50

 

Please read Thomas's comment below (the original text is copied for your convenience). For some aspects, we need more details. 

 

Last Friday we sent some proposals of components, and we proposed the AGPL license for most of them.

Which version?

We received some feedback from you that this license is too much restrictive as it could force the full system to be published under the AGPL license.

Not clear. Why? Who suggested this?

Almost everything that the proposers said they could do with AGPL (let's assume GNU-AGPLv3) can be done with GPLv3 or ASLv2. The compatibility issues are generally addressed in the compatibility matrix.
 

For this reason we can change the licenses of some of the modules to a less restrictive licenses but taking into account the licenses of the components that we integrate.
For the different modules the licenses proposed would be:

  • BabelNet Concept extractor. Our component can be published under the Apache  Software License 2.0 (ASL)

This is a FSF liberal licence, so no problems with that, a part of the fact that derivative works could be made closed source.

  • but BabelNet itself is limited to noncommercial use

This element is not affected by the choice of AGPL or Apache, so not sure why it is reported here.

  • Acronym Detection. This component does not have any restriction and we would provide it with the GPL license (as it is integrated with GATE with the same license)

What does it mean that it does not have any restriction? Is it in the public domain? Probably not. It may be that the proposers are the copyright holder. In which case the difference between GNU-AGPLv3 and GPLv3 (which are compatible for linking), merely refers to situations where the software is not distributed but run on a network (which is not a form of distribution and therefore does not trigger the copyleft obligation of GPLv3 but triggers the copyleft obligation of GNU-AGPLv3).

  • Word Sense Disambiguation: This component would be published with an ASL license except some parts that are under GPL as the original modules from DKPro. This license affects the source code but some language resources may have more  restrictive licenses.
  • Weka integration: This module would be published with the GPL license to  allow its integration with Weka.
  • FreeLing Integration: FreeLing is released under the AGPL and forces our component to be released with a compatible license. Our code can be released under a less restrictive license like the GPL V3.0. If OpenMintTeD team gets FreeLing under a less restrictive license then our component could be adapted to this license for example an ASL license (We are in contact with Lluís Padró to check up to which extend the AGPL would affect the full platform)

All the licences above should report the licence version.

  • DbPedia Spotlight integration with UIMA and:  We would use the  ASL 2.0 for our software but some of the components of the DbPedia Spolight have other licenses (GPL)
  • DBpedia and DBpedia Spotlight For Catalan: We would use the ASL 2.0 for our software but some of the components of the DbPedia Spolight have other licenses (GPL)

ASLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible in the sense that derivatives of software based on at least 1 ASLv2 and 1 GPLv3 will have to be redistributed under GPLv3 (if there is any act of redistribution). Not sure about the question.

Also available in: Atom PDF