|
Hi Peter,
I didn't say that the OOR would include commercial components. I said that the open source license adopted by the OOR licensing _model_ would allow the inclusion of commercial components (within an integrated system I mean). By this I mean that commercial components will be allowed to interoperate with open sourced OOR components. We're saying the same thing.
Cameron.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [CR] this intension of OOR licensing has already been stated.
> Specifically, that the OOR licensing model will allow the inclusion of both
> open source and commercial components.
[ppy] Cameron, I afraid your statement above has been misconstrued.
Ever since the beginning of the OOR initiative, and inclusive of the
community discourse and communique of OntologySummit2008, OOR
technology has, all along, been envisioned as being under some "open
source" licensing arrangement. We may need further deliberation to
arrive at a consensus on "which" particular licensing arrangement
shall be adopted. We definitely aren't going to re-open discussion on
whether or not OOR is to be open-sourced. The latter is a
prerequisite.
While the "interoperation with" commercial component is part of the
vision, the "inclusion of"commercial components in OOR has never been
part of that vision. ... Please note and proceed along that line of
thinking instead.
Regards. =ppy
--
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
> I agree that details of OOR licensing will need to wait until after the IPR
> sessions. However, this intension of OOR licensing has already been stated.
> Specifically, that the OOR licensing model will allow the inclusion of both
> open source and commercial components. The issues with GPL in this regard
> are well known, so it seems appropriate to mention here.
> Cameron.
> promote the
>> inclusion of both open source and commercial components
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Cameron,
>>
>> My take is that the OOR software and technology will be open-sourced.
>> We would want to be able to interoperate with proprietary software
>> (which should not be restricted by the open-source licensing).
>>
>> There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions (and hence we do
>> want our IPR sessions to surface and hopefully clarify them), but I
>> would certain,y not, at this point, qualify Adam's offer as having
>> licensing issues. ... (Besides, assuming Adam has full IPR on the
>> work, GPL would allow him to run multiple licensing arrangements.)
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>> --
>>
>>
>> On 7/25/10, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi Adam,
>> >
>> > Sigmakee's GPL licensing will be an issue if the OOR is to promote the
>> > inclusion of both open source and commercial components.
>> >
>> > Cameron.
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Peter,
>> >> The group might consider Sigma sigmakee.sourceforge.net for the
>> >> repository software. It's open source (GPL) and supports OWL
>> >> (partiall), SUO-KIF, TPTP and includes dozens of the best first order
>> >> reasoners and one new higher-order reasoner, ontology mapping tools,
>> >> browsing and much more.
>> >>
>> >> Adam
>>
>>
>> >> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:35 -0700, Peter Yim wrote:
>> >> > Hi Cameron,
>> >> >
>> >> > Great! ... [ontolog-forum] (mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> >> > would probably be the most appropriate list to make the announcement
>> >> > on.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ref. your suite of tools (if you decide to open source them) and your
>> >> > suggestion that you might be willing to contribute to developing a
>> >> > CL-backend for the OOR (given the BioPortal codebase), we were
>> >> > actually discussing that at the OOR meeting today (missed you there).
>> >> > Ref.
>> >>
>> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTP
>> >> > and
>> >>
>> >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTV
>> >> >
>> >> > In addition to announcing your "CLIF translation of SUMO" at the
>> >> > [ontolog-forum], maybe you and Adam (would you do that, Adam?) can
>> >> > join us at this upcoming Joint SIO-OOR-Ontolog "OOR and CL" (need a
>> >> > proper label yet) session to talk about that and other thought that
>> >> > are of relevance (in anticipation of the "Getting OOR Development
>> >> > Going - Take-III" workshop.)
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> >> > --
>>
>>
>> >> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > Hi Peter,
>> >> > > As I mentioned last week, I have completed my first pass at a CLIF
>> >> > > translation of SUMO. I call this translation SUMO-CL and it is now
>> >> > > available for download here: http://www.kojeware.com/downloads.jsp.
>> >> > > I
>> >> would
>> >> > > like to announce this on one of the ONTOLOG forums. Which one do
>> >> > > you
>> >> think
>> >> > > would be most appropriate?
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Cameron.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Kojeware Corporation
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kojeware Corporation
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kojeware Corporation
>
-- Kojeware Corporation
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (01)
|