Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Simon - speech activated user interface for KDE (KDE.News)
Posted Aug 24, 2009 17:32 UTC (Mon) by bedahr (guest, #60420)
So I would much rather compare it to firefox / flash. Just because firefox functionality can be extended using flash, firefox itself is not non-free...?
Posted Aug 24, 2009 17:50 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
If Simon needs at least one speech model locally to be useful...we'd have to understand what the speech models are in terms of codebase and the implications thereof.
Posted Aug 24, 2009 18:11 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Aug 24, 2009 18:50 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
The devil's in the details. I think a lot of people would need to study up on the details of this codebase interaction with proprietary bits, this is not a fire and forget situation by any means. The point is, this isn't a common situation in terms of licensing a functional software stack, nor is it ideal. It outside standing policy and common practise.
Posted Aug 24, 2009 18:47 UTC (Mon) by bedahr (guest, #60420)
Of course there are existing speech models.
You could even use speech models created by SPHINX-Train by using a speech model converter to convert the model to HTK format (there is such a converter available on sourceforge).
BUT: Speech models created by the HTK can be used _freely_ anyways. You can create models using HTK and then basically use them for whatever you want. This is also the reason why the voxforge initiative can build their speech model using the HTK and still licence the model itself under the GPL license.
The HTK plain text hmm format is well documented.
You can check out an example here: http://www.repository.voxforge1.org/downloads/Nightly_Bui...
(The file hmmdefs is the HMM model created by the HTK).
I don't know what you mean by "bug in a speech model" but I am going to assume that you mean e.g. wrongly transcribed trainingssamples. Well fixing that would depend on how you built the model in the first place. In all likelyhood you would end up changing the input files and re-generating the whole model with those new parameters (using the HTK, SPHINX or whatever was used in the first place).
For the record: There is an open source initiative called ghmm which tries to create a GPL licenced library for working with HMM models but I contacted them and they said they were not ready for this kind of usage and generally want to be more general-purpose than the HTK so I am not sure if they will be soon/ever.
Also, the HTK is very high quality software and a good recognition rate is obviously the main goal for any speech recognition software - GPL or not.
Posted Aug 24, 2009 18:56 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
This should be a non-issue if this comes up for discussion in a package review.
Posted Aug 24, 2009 19:01 UTC (Mon) by bedahr (guest, #60420)
I can't remember how often I had the exact same issue raised but it always ended in someone crying out: "Uses non-GPL code! Kill it with fire!" (or similar) and not relating to any replies or explanations from my side at all.
So again, thanks for understanding the complicated situation!
Posted Aug 24, 2009 19:46 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Aug 24, 2009 20:31 UTC (Mon) by bedahr (guest, #60420)
Maybe I'll even add it to the FAQ of the project wiki...
But btw.: Has anyone even talked to the fedora team? Or is this a hypothetical discussion? If so it is oddly fedora specific IMHO?
Posted Aug 24, 2009 20:47 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts members of Fedora's Technical leadership will read the discussion here and will be aware of the content argument. But ultimately it comes down to someone taking the responsibility to maintain the Simon package and start the package submission review process. A summary of the situation in faq or readme will help prevent an unnecessary delay once someone does step forward.
I would also think a Debian packaging effort would also benefit from a summary of this discussion...if they aren't ready working on packages. I think they'll have similar concerns but I'm less informed about the details of Debian policy with regard to "content" versus "code" than I am about Fedora's policy.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds