Re: Licensing of Language Resources
Albert Astals Cid <[email protected]> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:27:41 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <3605071.5Y9bJtXnUL@xps> |
El Divendres, 12 d'abril de 2013, a les 08:18:48, Andreas Cord-Landwehr va escriure: > On Thursday 11 April 2013 23:17:50 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > El Dimarts, 9 d'abril de 2013, a les 22:50:45, Andreas Cord-Landwehr va > > > > escriure: > > > Hi, I recently started Artikulate (a language learning/pronunciation > > > training application that currently lives in KDE Edu playground). As the > > > application becomes more stable, it is a must for this application to > > > gather a large base of language material. This material consists of > > > * XML files that specify lists of phrases > > > * according recordings from native speakers (probably OGG file format) > > > and will be located due to the expected repository size in an extra GIT > > > repository named artikulate-data [1]. > > > > > > But before starting and to add the first course files (that by their > > > nature > > > will/must come from a lot of different people), I want to fix the > > > licensing > > > of those to be created files. > > > > > > For this I created in the repository a README file as well a > > > COPYING.COURSE > > > file (for all courses) and a COPYING file (for scripts that are used for > > > maintainance work). My interpretation of the techbase licensing article > > [2] > > > > is that the course files should be licensed under a CC-BY-SA license. > > > For > > > the script files I chose the LGPL2.1+ terms. > > > > Are you speaking of point 10? Note the keyword there is "may", you can use > > other of the acceptable licenses for data too if you want. > > Thanks Albert, > > bullet points 10 and 11 were the points I was thinking about. What is/was > unclear for me is what the definition of a "standalone media" is. Hence, > does point 11 apply or not (applying would result in the fact that the data > "must" be licensed under GPL). > > Actually, I can very well live with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license for the data. We way *I* read it (note that i did not write it so not sure it matters :D) is that if you have data (media file) it can be either CC-BY-SA or all the list of licenses in 4 o 5 (which has stuff like BSD, don't see why applying 11 would result into a forced GPL as you say) Cheers, Albert > > Greetings, > Andreas > _______________________________________________ > Kde-licensing mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing