Re: Please review Julius's license (custom license with publicity clause)
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals wrote:
> 2. In the event you provide to any third party all or any portion of
> the Software, whether for copying, duplication, adaptation,
> modification, preparation of a derivative work, aggregation with
> another program, insertion into another program, or other use, you
> shall affix the following copyright notice and all terms and
> conditions of this license (both the Japanese original and English
> translation) as set forth herein, without any revision or change
> whatsoever.
This is a lawyer bomb, as it doesn't describe where and how we are
supposed to affix the copyright notice. [I *think* they mean that it
should be included with the software, but it could also mean that it
needs to be written on the CD, which is a non-starter.]
Alternatively, this vagueness may be a consequence of an imprecise
English translation; I can't read Japanese (and certainly not legal
Japanese) well enough to state one way or the other.
> 3. When you publish or present any results by using the Software,
> you must explicitly mention your use of "Large Vocabulary Continuous
> Speech Recognition Engine Julius".
There's no reason to require this; it makes the software non-free as
it is clearly a use restriction. [A suggestion that people cite the
software is almost certainly enough, and should accomplish what the
author wishes in most cases.]
> 5. This license of use of the Software shall be governed by the laws
> of Japan, and the Kyoto District Court shall have exclusive primary
> jurisdiction with respect to all disputes arising with respect
> thereto.
This sounds like proscribed venue; that's not something that I would
ever agree to in a software licence without thought. However, I'm not
sure what the current consensus is about the freeness of such clauses.
> 6. Inquiries for support or maintenance of the Software, or inquiries
> concerning this license of use besides the conditions above, may be
> sent to Julius project team, Nagoya Institute of Technology, or
> Kawahara Lab., Kyoto University.
Point 6 doesn't belong in the license; it should go in a readme or
somewhere else. [It doesn't affect the freeness of the license,
however.]
Don Armstrong
--
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.
-- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §21
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: