Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 14th Jul 2006 22:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 143075
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: OpenCyc not so open?
by binarycrusader on Sat 15th Jul 2006 00:05
in reply to "RE: OpenCyc not so open?"
Yes, but that still means it's not really "open." At least, it doesn't fit the definition of what most readers of this site would associated with "open" and software.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! I'm a commercial software developer myself. I just think the other poster is right, and the name is a bit of a misnomer.
RE[3]: OpenCyc not so open?
by Eugenia on Sat 15th Jul 2006 00:57
in reply to "RE[2]: OpenCyc not so open?"
Well, it depends how you see it. If you see Cyc as a two-part project, then it's half open. But these two parts can be used individually and a new open source application can be created and takes full advantage of the knowledge base. If OpenCyc was supposed to be only the "data" part, then it is indeed open.
Anyways, this project is a monster (in a good way).
Edited 2006-07-15 00:59







Member since:
2005-06-28
Well, I guess they want to be able to pay their bills too so they had to keep something proprietary too from the whole deal. They have spend many years researching Cyc.