Re: CMU LTI Licence

[Alan W Black <awb@cs.cmu.edu>]

Francis Tyers wrote:
> 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.

Thank you, perhaps we should have explicitly stated the reasoning we 
made to choose that particular license so that is was clear that it was 
a deliberate choice, and make clearly the consequences (e.g. 
incompatibility with GPL) to those who are not so familiar with the 
nuances of the open source licenses.

Alan


> 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: awb@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
> > > >
> > > >