From legal-discuss-return-6015-apmail-legal-discuss-archive=apache.org@apache.org Fri Nov 05 13:20:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 10080 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2010 13:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Nov 2010 13:20:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 6558 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2010 13:20:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 6329 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2010 13:20:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 6322 invoked by uid 99); 5 Nov 2010 13:20:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:20:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.50] (HELO mail-bw0-f50.google.com) (209.85.214.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:20:25 +0000 Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so2771937bwz.23 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 06:20:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ZlXmTEhXAMN0KhcujxlBYXDE3v+VHLspY3/HQObEfMY=; b=kq0jhsuU2mdyj/oMMjPCO9RpfBLQeLGbK6CBxXyyf8abRr27ah/swNb6CBG+pumXkY hQ9/N9DwJKwv9D46td2REpzseat3cihCBpWmjVP732BpdtekG1AlMO8YusxXwN4QaSvw gWDqlUUKcqb0gax8CJGWw/k7eJ3z76CE7st90= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=o5bR84eeIuH0D8mql33hDA95+pbYyKUTnCbBaD80VjQwIpXTSMGnKqlh5Tf4SxZAS9 xAKVG3Uz5VRIzR6cvcvSMV8Y0umeZOIFffD3scwN1RLGjBNYZ3iv7RGXtkDZs3fsxZQy JizGfA8dHyZro3mJmgQ7biQ2Tpo1O906vP4E0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.71.65 with SMTP id g1mr1879344bkj.23.1288963205054; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 06:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.78.79 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 06:20:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CD3BB4A.2000406@apache.org> <4CD3CB3F.2020303@apache.org> <065FE36F-B330-4F43-8194-5FAB58BFEEB0@apache.org> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:20:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fair-use data in svn From: Benson Margulies To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Niall, Have I asked them if the ASF can have permission? No, I have not. Have many, many, NLP researchers asked these questions over many, many years? Yes. Is it worth a try again? Sure. The purpose of this email thread was to question if the ASF could find a *legal* path to do, collectively, what companies and academics do individually currently. If the answer to that is 'no', then looking to get permissions from content sources is a logical next step. --benson --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org