Mailing-List: contact ctakes-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.James@mayo.edu>
To: "'ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org'" <ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What should we do with cTAKES resources?
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] What should we do with cTAKES resources?
Thread-Index: Ac25Q2tcT8MT8yIYTgSsEXh9sYYTeQCQaCmADzGYvFA=
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:00:15 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD0071612@MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mfroot.org>
References: <924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D92219BC@CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.ORG>
 <5097B3C5.1050103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5097B3C5.1050103@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


J=F6rn,=20

Today Benson wrote the following in this post to incubator http://s.apache.=
org/Gz5
"I fear that cTakes needs to have an interaction with LEGAL to adopt the Sp=
amAssassin model, since, from a strict constructionist perspective, the sou=
rce of the models is precisely what you cannot release."

Is he just unaware of some discussion you already had with LEGAL for OpenNL=
P - I ask because in the discussion below you indicated it would be OK to r=
elease models at Apache without releasing the data the models were built fr=
om. Is there some previous post we can point to or should I open a discussi=
on with LEGAL about cTAKES models


-- James Masanz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ctakes-dev-return-811-Masanz.James=3Dmayo.edu@incubator.apache.org
> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-811-Masanz.James=3Dmayo.edu@incubator.apache.or=
g]
> On Behalf Of J=F6rn Kottmann
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 6:41 AM
> To: ctakes-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What should we do with cTAKES resources?
>=20
> In my opinion we should release what we can from here at Apache and only
> the resources which have an incompatible license need to be handled
> differently, e.g. external site.
>=20
> Models which are trained on private clinical data can be released as long
> as the original creator decides to license them under AL 2.0. If that is
> done by a committer it should be fine to just check them in or put them o=
n
> the website.
>=20
> The wikipedia license is compatible and an index of it as well, but we
> probably need to have attributio for it in a NOTICE file, and maybe
> include the license in the LICENSE file.
>=20
> J=F6rn
>=20
> On 11/02/2012 10:46 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
> > I think we postponed this topic previously and since the ASF code seems
> to be in decent shape now, I think it's time to revisit this discussion
> for the longer term.
> > Currently, we have the below resources bundled with our source code
> > and distribution
> >
> > -          UMLS dictionaries (hsqldb format and in lucene indexes)
> >
> > -          Models (which were okay be to release opened source) that
> have been train from various clinical data
> >
> > -          Wikipedia index
> >
> > What are our options as ASF source code, binaries, models,
> > dependencies all need to be compliant with ASL 2.0
> > (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
> >
> > 1)      Leave things as they are, but we need to confirm with the
> sources and also will probably need to seek approval from Apache Legal fo=
r
> each of the resources
> >
> > 2)      Host the resources externally such as SourceForge similar to
> OpenNLP models (http://opennlp.sourceforge.net/models-1.5/)
> >
> > a.       Single zip per release for users to download?
> >
> > Option 2 seems the least painful in terms of compliance.
> > Since 3.0.0-incubating, each resource has a fully qualified name/path
> and is read from the classpath so it should be fairly easy if we decided
> to pull it in from external sources.
> >
> > --Pei
> >
> >