Nltk: Fulfilling the requirements of the Treebank Tokenizer License
I am concerned about the Treebank Tokenizer's use, by its License terms.
The source for the tokeniser (via waybackmachine) includes the text:
by Robert MacIntyre, University of Pennsylvania, late 1995.
If this wasn't such a trivial program, I'd include all that stuff about
no warrantee, free use, etc. from the GNU General Public License. If you
want to be picky, assume that all of its terms apply. Okay?
This is really problematic, AFAICT.
It is an awful crayon license,
neither its meaning nor its precise intent is clear.
Under a literal interpretation, one is most restricted when not being picky,
and still very restricted if not being picky
I asked about it on OpenSource StackExchange
As I see it, one has two choices:
- Do not be picky: then this has no license and so can not be incorporated into any open source project. All rights remain with Robert MacIntyre.
- Be picky: this is effectively under some version of the GPL, it can be incorporated only into things that can incorporate GPL works. Since this work is from 1995, it means it is either GPL 1, or GPL 2, is intended.
As far as I can tell, that reasoning is correct, and applies to NLTK's usage.
As NLTK is Apache 2 Licensed, incorporating GPL works is not (normally considered) possible.
I can't find any further reference to the tokenizer or to Robert MacIntyre. LICENSE nor in AUTHORS.md.
oxinabox
All 5 comments
As a layperson not extensively familiar with licensing, it sounds like he's saying this program is so simple that he doesn't feel the need to bother with legal language, and anyone is free to use the software so long as they don't sue him.
But perhaps contacting him would clarify things: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-macintyre-07330280
nschneid
on 20 Jun 2017
Thanks @oxinabox and @nschneid. I'm trying to contact Robert MacIntyre.
stevenbird
on 22 Jun 2017
@stevenbird any update on this?
I'ld like to use the code in my own projects, but not while the licensing is up in the air.
oxinabox
on 7 Sep 2017
seems to me that there're two possible licenses here
If this wasn't such a trivial program, I'd include all that stuff about
no warrantee, free use, etc. from the GNU General Public License. If you
want to be picky, assume that all of its terms apply. Okay?
either it's full GPL of that time or it's none of it, public domain style.
dseddah
on 22 Dec 2017
Unfortunately, there's a big difference between "full GPL" and "public domain". I don't suppose there was any luck in contacting the original author?
Thunderforge
on 23 Jan 2018
Related issues
libingnan54321
·
3Comments
DavidNemeskey
·
4Comments
mwess
·
5Comments
talbaumel
·
4Comments
peterbe
·
5Comments
Most helpful comment
As a layperson not extensively familiar with licensing, it sounds like he's saying this program is so simple that he doesn't feel the need to bother with legal language, and anyone is free to use the software so long as they don't sue him.
But perhaps contacting him would clarify things: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-macintyre-07330280