Comments from "About VoxForge" Page

By ravi - 3/28/2017

can anyone please explain me the format for utterance files.

By Praiseworthy - 3/19/2017 - 2 Replies

Hi,

By anupama - 3/31/2015

i WANT TO INTRODUCE SKIP IN HMM DEFINITION. PLEASE SUGGEST ME HOW TO GET THE ATTRIBUTE WHICH SPECIFY THIS SKIP..

By jalea148 - 2/8/2015

librivox.org

By anonymous - 9/27/2013 - 1 Replies

VoxForge is a very nice project. It would be cool if there was some sort of status page. It could

By AlAmir - 2/11/2012 - 1 Replies

Hi sir,

By biswajit.net - 2/17/2011 - 1 Replies

Hi,

By Arthur Chan - 1/21/2011 - 1 Replies

Hi all,

By [email protected] - 7/5/2010 - 3 Replies

i need an open source speech rec model for my business. I can contribute 100,000+ dictations and associated transcriptions to the project (medical reports with all patient and physician information redacted).

By shirish agarwal - 4/30/2010 - 1 Replies

Hi there,

By kmaclean - 11/12/2009

In reponse to this post on LWN.net: Simon - speech activated user interface for KDE (KDE.News):

By softtalk - 10/8/2009 - 2 Replies

How does the GPL license for voice data affect the owner's obligations with respect to application source code that uses the voices? In general, GPL licensed code "infects" any code that links to it. If my code requires voxforge voices or voices that are derived from voxforge voices to run, do I have to open source my application code as well as voices?

By Judy - 9/21/2009 - 1 Replies

What is GPL and does the word "melarkia" have anything to do with it? I did a google search for "melarkia" and it sent me to VoxForge. Anyone know the answer? Thanks.

By kmaclean - 8/2/2009 - 1 Replies

This article provides an support for VoxForge's use of the GPL: The different reasons for company code contributions. In it, the author states:

By vj61614 - 1/12/2009

pls help me in eliminating this error

By Anthony Martinez - 5/31/2008 - 1 Replies

Hello, Congratulations for your project :) My question is simple, why not use also LGPL? If we could put this module in a commercial software, using LGPL would be mandatory to commit any modifications to the source code (that would bring more coders and investment into this module). This would be fair for the community, it would bring more people and more investment, and wouldn't be anti-enterprise. Would be the best of both worlds. Not all enterprises are evil. There are good enterprises that bring innovation, create jobs, pay taxes and make a good contribution to the world. The problem is when those companies become too greedy to share any innovation. Thats why LGPL is so nice. Think about it :) Cya

By Robert (Jamie) Munro - 1/27/2008 - 2 Replies

Be very careful in the way you license this data. If you release a great collection of GPL data, and someone else releases a great collection of data under, for example, a CC-by license, it will probably be illegal to combine the two corpuses and make a working speech recognition product. I have been involved in 2 projects that went through immense pain because of this issue. The solution is as follows: Set up a proper legal entity to hold the data (an organisation). Make sure the organisation has good governance that end users will approve of. Make end users assign a non-exculsive irrevokeable perpetual license to the organisation for the organisation do to whatever it democratically decides in future. If you don't make this clear right from the start, any attempt to change the license, for whatever reason, will be impossible. For example, if a court rules that using a subset of the data derived from VoxForge on a hand-held device doesn't comply with the source code rule, and you have to bundle gigabytes of data in order to use VoxForge derived engines on mobile devices, you will be back to square one, and will have to start collecting data all over again. Who knows why a court may do that, but unless you can be sure, you can't risk not assigning data. The organisation could have in it's constitution, (terms of incorporation or whatever it's called in the relevant jurisdiction) that it will always make the data available under the GPL, but may additionally make it available under other licenses.

By Visitor - 10/10/2006 - 5 Replies

I think there is a misunderstanding of the difference between audio data and source code. When I create an executable from source code, I might modify the source code. But when I create acoustic models, I don't modify the data that is used to train the acoustic models. So, if I have to distribute the data along with my models, I'd be distributing an identical copy of the data. (Not to mention the difficulties of distributing gigabytes of data...)