Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without restrictions ?
I am very sorry, but I do not understand the question. I support that people should be able to freely use our data, but as per specific questions, I don't quite get what you are asking.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without restrictions ?
I am very sorry, but I do not understand the question. I support that people should be able to freely use our data, but as per specific questions, I don't quite get what you are asking.
--Jimbo
Hoi, The NTG is a Dutch organisation that maintains a resource that is used by most Open/Free software application that are in need of such a resource. These applications are under any and all Open / Free licenses. The NTG has it nominally under the LGPL but they do not enforce it at all. The license is there to ensure that nobody can make it propietary.
I do want to cooperate with these people, getting the list into the Ultimate Wiktionary is relatively easy but it would make more sense if we could be a resource to hold this type of data for ANY Open / Free application. It would give us a community that is instantly much bigger. It would give the UW an extra objective; to be the lexicological resource of choise for Open / Free projects. I am of the opinion that this would be an opportunity too good to miss.
When we achieve this for the Dutch language, I am sure we will be able to achieve this for other languages as well. The question is can we do this and are we willing to do this from a license point of view and how do we do this with licenses in mind.
Thanks, Gerard
On 6/22/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The NTG is a Dutch organisation that maintains a resource that is used by most Open/Free software application that are in need of such a resource. These applications are under any and all Open / Free licenses. The NTG has it nominally under the LGPL but they do not enforce it at all. The license is there to ensure that nobody can make it propietary.
Are NTG against commercial re-use?
< an extra objective; to be the lexicological
resource of choise for Open / Free projects. I am of the opinion that this would be an opportunity too good to miss.
You are using "open" and "free" very loosely here. If we want to be the resource of choice for all projects of any type whatsoever, we cannot make the content non-commercial-use-only. A non-commercial project cannot accept GFDL content; a GFDL project cannot accept non-comm content.
SJ
Sj wrote:
On 6/22/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The NTG is a Dutch organisation that maintains a resource that is used by most Open/Free software application that are in need of such a resource. These applications are under any and all Open / Free licenses. The NTG has it nominally under the LGPL but they do not enforce it at all. The license is there to ensure that nobody can make it propietary.
Are NTG against commercial re-use?
There will be two parties involved: OSOSS and NTG, I will know exactlywhere they stand once I met them. I will have a meeting on the eight of July.
< an extra objective; to be the lexicological
resource of choise for Open / Free projects. I am of the opinion that this would be an opportunity too good to miss.
You are using "open" and "free" very loosely here. If we want to be the resource of choice for all projects of any type whatsoever, we cannot make the content non-commercial-use-only. A non-commercial project cannot accept GFDL content; a GFDL project cannot accept non-comm content.
SJ
I use it loosely as both Open and Free software applications make use of this resource. The NTG is really not interested in licenses, they want the resource to be used. In a way I sympathise even agree, once information is truly Free there is no purpose in making a proprietary resource that does the same. As to what license is best, I have at this moment no clue. I do know that there may be changes underway with regard to the GFDL..
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I use it loosely as both Open and Free software applications make use of this resource. The NTG is really not interested in licenses, they want the resource to be used. In a way I sympathise even agree, once information is truly Free there is no purpose in making a proprietary resource that does the same.
The problem is not that they cannot make the information itself non free, but if a commercially interested party improves on it using our information as a base, it would be nice that the improvements/corrections remain free as well. This is especially important for software. I'm not sure how important it is for dictionary or encyclopedia entries.
Jo
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org