ANN: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

The software is a library as well as a GTK GUI front-end for machine
learning projects. Features:

- Based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the possibility theory;
- Features are fuzzy;
- Fuzzy classes, which may intersect and can be treated as features;
- Numeric, enumeration features and ones based on linguistic variables;
- Derived and evaluated features;
- Classifiers as features for building hierarchical systems;
- User-defined features;
- An automatic classification refinement in case of dependent features;
- Incremental learning;
- Object-oriented software design;
- Features, training sets and classifiers are extensible objects;
- Automatic garbage collection;
- Generic data base support (through ODBC);
- Text I/O and HTML routines for features, training sets and classifiers;
- GTK+ widgets for features, training sets and classifiers;
- Examples of use.

This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).

http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/fuzzy_ml.htm

Changes to the version 1.1:

- This release fixes minor bugs in importing training sets from text files;
- The 'hicolor' icon theme was included into binary distribution for
Windows.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
putting a restrictive license upon it).

--
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr

On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
> intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
> putting a restrictive license upon it).

I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
wanted?

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

"J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:

> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> > This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> > software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> it's not public domain.

Just to be picky, if it's licensed under GMGPL it is not free software, it's
GPL software. GPL is a viral, forcible open source license. It has nothing
to do with freedom. GPL software is open source, but it's not free.

There are free software licenses such as BSD and MIT.

> Public domain means that you give up all your intellectual rights
> (possibly allowing someone to take your work and putting a restrictive
> license upon it).

I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial, so it's a bit hard
to understand your two comments at the same time. Nevertheless, the public
domain copy remains and people are free to use it or not, however they
wish. They can relicense their copy or modifications they make but it
doesn't cause the public domain instance to become encumbered.

Richard Hipp didn't go broke placing sqlite and fossil in the public domain.

Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:
>
>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
>> it's not public domain.
>
> Just to be picky,

In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free"
and its uses with software. Since there is no single
definition of the word "free", discussions will necessarily
lead into morass. The GPL is openly stating the restrictions
it imposes on the uses of a work (tit for tat at the source level).
The more permissive licenses do that, too (for example,
"keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or that"
terms are different.

There is a profitable way of discussing whose perspective
on "free" is right. It is when one can turn discussions
into money and/or advertisements, such as through journals
or in fora of market research organizations such as
Google, or Facebook. There is less to be had from discussing
"freedom" on c.l.Ada, I should think.

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>
>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
>> it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
>> intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
>> putting a restrictive license upon it).
>
> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
> wanted?

The exception says it applies to instances of the given work.
LGPL sounds different.

In fact, it is not possible to give up originators rights under
German law. If authors publish a work, the connection with
their work cannot normally be removed. They may give rights to use
their work, though, within bounds imposed by overruling law
as usual.

There is no public domain (US style) in continental
Europe, TTBOMK. (The same term may mean something
different in the UK, IIRC.)

Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au> writes:

> I thought the GPL was about intellectual rights denial

Nonsense.

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
> wanted?

Depends what you mean by 'derivative'.

I can take your GMGPL'd work and use it to build proprietary software.

But I can't take your work and issue it myself with a different licence
(I can, I believe, issue it with a plain GPL, but can't see the evidence
for that).

I'm not sure how much I can amend your work before its GMGPL no longer
applies. I guess that bugfixes would be OK! (not that I'm suggesting
there are any bugs, of course ...)

Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.arcor.de> wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> >
> >> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> >>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> >>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> >> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> >> it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all your
> >> intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work and
> >> putting a restrictive license upon it).
> >
> > I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
> > wanted?
>
> The exception says it applies to instances of the given work.
> LGPL sounds different.
>
> In fact, it is not possible to give up originators rights under
> German law. If authors publish a work, the connection with
> their work cannot normally be removed. They may give rights to use
> their work, though, within bounds imposed by overruling law
> as usual.
>
> There is no public domain (US style) in continental
> Europe, TTBOMK. (The same term may mean something
> different in the UK, IIRC.)

Even more reason to use an accepted free software license like BSD or MIT,
if your intent is to share your code openly and still retain the copyright.

Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.arcor.de> wrote:

> Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:
> > "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
> >>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
> >>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
> >> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
> >> it's not public domain.
> >
> > Just to be picky,
>
> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free"
> and its uses with software. Since there is no single
> definition of the word "free"

Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that serfs
and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting of the
concept for his nefarious purposes.

> discussions will necessarily lead into morass.

Only for liars and politicians. Everyone else agrees what freedom means.

> The GPL is openly stating the restrictions it imposes on the uses of a
> work

Bzzt! There's your answer, it's not free.

> (tit for tat at the source level). The more permissive licenses do that,
> too (for example, "keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or
> that" terms are different.

The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
what you want. They're saying you shouldn't lie or plagiarize, but that is
not a restriction. They could also say not to rob or murder, but all of
those things are already agreed by society to be wrong and they have nothing
to do with the software itself, so I think the (new) BSD and MIT licenses
are really free software licenses. There are others.

> There is a profitable way of discussing whose perspective
> on "free" is right. It is when one can turn discussions
> into money and/or advertisements, such as through journals
> or in fora of market research organizations such as
> Google, or Facebook. There is less to be had from discussing
> "freedom" on c.l.Ada, I should think.

Agreed, but I can't let the GPL lies go unchallenged. If you spout, I'll
stomp it out.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> writes:

> Bzzt! There's your answer, it's not free.

Rubbish.

I had thought you were fairly sensible, but ...

Nomen Nescio writes on comp.lang.ada:
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> Kulin wrote:
>>> "J-P. Rosen" wrote:
>>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
>>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
>>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
>>>> but it's not public domain.
>>>
>>> Just to be picky,
>>
>> In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free" and its uses
>> with software. Since there is no single definition of the word "free"
>
> Freedom means the absence of restriction, and it doesn't matter that
> serfs and GPL fanbois have participated in Stallman's obscene twisting
> of the concept for his nefarious purposes.

Stallman's only "nefarious purpose" is to prevent people from removing
freedom from free software. Therefore, freedom is not the total absence
of restriction, it is the fact that the only restriction is "thou shalt
not make this software proprietary". For this reason, the GPL defends
freedom much more vigorously than the BSD or MIT licenses do.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes on comp.lang.ada:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
>> but it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all
>> your intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work
>> and putting a restrictive license upon it).
>
> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
> wanted?

The GMGPL or, since GCC 4.4, GPL3 with Runtime Library Exception, allows
people to distribute *binaries* including (aka linked with) your
libraries under whatever license they wish. They cannot, however,
redistribute the *sources* of your library under whatever license they
wish. If they choose to redistribute the sources, they must do so under
your original license terms and with your copyright.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:55:11 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> I'm not sure how much I can amend your work before its GMGPL no longer
> applies.

I hoped that were possible.

> I guess that bugfixes would be OK! (not that I'm suggesting
> there are any bugs, of course ...)

Huh, there are always bugs. It is amazing how different looks same code
when revised just one year later.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:23:09 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:53 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian
>>>> (apt). The software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software,
>>> but it's not public domain. Public domain means that you give up all
>>> your intellectual rights (possibly allowing someone to take your work
>>> and putting a restrictive license upon it).
>>
>> I thought GMGPL allowed derivative works to be restricted as anybody
>> wanted?
>
> The GMGPL or, since GCC 4.4, GPL3 with Runtime Library Exception, allows
> people to distribute *binaries* including (aka linked with) your
> libraries under whatever license they wish. They cannot, however,
> redistribute the *sources* of your library under whatever license they
> wish. If they choose to redistribute the sources, they must do so under
> your original license terms and with your copyright.

Why anybody wanted to distribute same stuff under a different license?
Licensing should encourage new work, public or proprietary, no matter. Or I
again missed something?

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de