Since the recent news regarding the ICDAR dataset I've been looking for similar situations on Kaggle competitions in the past and found these two discussions:
\n\n\nI would like to thank everyone for the active discussion about software licenses on the forum. In discussion with Kaggle, we would like to reiterate that all final submissions must be compliant with the Competition Rules. There are many commonly used permissive open source licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, BSD 3.0, others) that are compatible with the MIT License and therefore are compliant with the Competition Rules. @rwightman provided an informative post with advice for making other permissive open source licenses compliant with the MIT License. More restrictive open source licenses (e.g., GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, others with similar restrictive characteristics) are not compatible with the MIT License and therefore should not be used in final submissions. There have also been questions about the procedure that will be used to check compliance. After the final submissions, Kaggle will contact the top teams on the private leaderboard and they will be required to demonstrate that their solution is compliant with the Competition Rules. Submissions found to be non-compliant will be removed from the leaderboard.
\n
It seems that non compliant solutions have been removed in the past. Very unfortunate situation, since this whole predicament we have found ourselves into could have been easily resolved with a bit of research from the hosts.
", "messages": [ { "id": 2290154, "postDate": "2023-06-06T15:32:55.787Z", "content": "Since the recent news regarding the ICDAR dataset I've been looking for similar situations on Kaggle competitions in the past and found these two discussions:
\n\n\nI would like to thank everyone for the active discussion about software licenses on the forum. In discussion with Kaggle, we would like to reiterate that all final submissions must be compliant with the Competition Rules. There are many commonly used permissive open source licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, BSD 3.0, others) that are compatible with the MIT License and therefore are compliant with the Competition Rules. @rwightman provided an informative post with advice for making other permissive open source licenses compliant with the MIT License. More restrictive open source licenses (e.g., GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, others with similar restrictive characteristics) are not compatible with the MIT License and therefore should not be used in final submissions. There have also been questions about the procedure that will be used to check compliance. After the final submissions, Kaggle will contact the top teams on the private leaderboard and they will be required to demonstrate that their solution is compliant with the Competition Rules. Submissions found to be non-compliant will be removed from the leaderboard.
\n
It seems that non compliant solutions have been removed in the past. Very unfortunate situation, since this whole predicament we have found ourselves into could have been easily resolved with a bit of research from the hosts.
", "rawMarkdown": "Since the recent news regarding the ICDAR dataset I've been looking for similar situations on Kaggle competitions in the past and found these two discussions:\n\n- [Discussion 1](https://www.kaggle.com/c/global-wheat-detection/discussion/167298)\n\n> I would like to thank everyone for the active discussion about software licenses on the forum. In discussion with Kaggle, we would like to reiterate that all final submissions must be compliant with the Competition Rules. There are many commonly used permissive open source licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, BSD 3.0, others) that are compatible with the MIT License and therefore are compliant with the Competition Rules. @rwightman provided an informative post with advice for making other permissive open source licenses compliant with the MIT License. More restrictive open source licenses (e.g., GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, others with similar restrictive characteristics) are not compatible with the MIT License and therefore should not be used in final submissions. There have also been questions about the procedure that will be used to check compliance. After the final submissions, Kaggle will contact the top teams on the private leaderboard and they will be required to demonstrate that their solution is compliant with the Competition Rules. Submissions found to be non-compliant will be removed from the leaderboard.\n\n- [Discussion 2](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/global-wheat-detection/discussion/167140)\n\nIt seems that non compliant solutions have been removed in the past. Very unfortunate situation, since this whole predicament we have found ourselves into could have been easily resolved with a bit of research from the hosts.", "votes": 5 }, { "id": 2290183, "postDate": "2023-06-06T15:58:22.947Z", "content": "From my interpretation of the rules and of the recent post, what happened in the Global Wheat competition is going to happen here as well. They will drop prize-eligible teams that broke the rules.
\nThere is a chance they check the gold zone as well, so I'm not taking that risk. Unless the hosts state otherwise.
", "rawMarkdown": "From my interpretation of the rules and of the recent post, what happened in the Global Wheat competition is going to happen here as well. They will drop prize-eligible teams that broke the rules. \n\nThere is a chance they check the gold zone as well, so I'm not taking that risk. Unless the hosts state otherwise.", "votes": 6, "replies": [ { "id": 2290205, "postDate": "2023-06-06T16:13:14.343Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "isDeleted": true, "replies": [ { "id": 2290220, "postDate": "2023-06-06T16:24:31.680Z", "content": "Your ranking goes up as users get removed, gold medals are still handed out.
", "rawMarkdown": "Your ranking goes up as users get removed, gold medals are still handed out. ", "votes": 2 }, { "id": 2290224, "postDate": "2023-06-06T16:26:15.150Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "isDeleted": true } ] } ] }, { "id": 2290165, "postDate": "2023-06-06T15:45:45.767Z", "content": "Agreed, this is an unacceptable situation and these questions absolutely should not go unanswered. Kagglers have put a lot of work into this and its a sad way to see it all end.
", "rawMarkdown": "Agreed, this is an unacceptable situation and these questions absolutely should not go unanswered. Kagglers have put a lot of work into this and its a sad way to see it all end.", "votes": 2 }, { "id": 2290164, "postDate": "2023-06-06T15:45:07.363Z", "content": "The thing is that they will check probably the top teams if this rule still holds by the end of the competition. But how about the rest of the teams on the leaderboard? We all give a lot of effort and I think it's Kaggle's/hosts' responsibility to make sure that these efforts are not wasted. No one wants to stay behind just because following the rules.
", "rawMarkdown": "The thing is that they will check probably the top teams if this rule still holds by the end of the competition. But how about the rest of the teams on the leaderboard? We all give a lot of effort and I think it's Kaggle's/hosts' responsibility to make sure that these efforts are not wasted. No one wants to stay behind just because following the rules.", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 2290170, "postDate": "2023-06-06T15:47:29.710Z", "content": "I believe they should at least verify submission compliance for all medal winners if they want to go down this route, otherwise, they should accept submissions anyway as it is not our fault they did not do the initial research.
", "rawMarkdown": "I believe they should at least verify submission compliance for all medal winners if they want to go down this route, otherwise, they should accept submissions anyway as it is not our fault they did not do the initial research. ", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 2290185, "postDate": "2023-06-06T16:00:31.703Z", "content": "I agree. I don't think they will investigate all the medal winners but the gold ones maybe.
", "rawMarkdown": "I agree. I don't think they will investigate all the medal winners but the gold ones maybe.", "votes": 1 } ] } ] }, { "id": 2290233, "postDate": "2023-06-06T16:32:44.303Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "votes": 1, "isDeleted": true } ], "comments": [ { "id": 2290183, "author_name": "Theo Viel", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T15:58:22.947000", "content": "From my interpretation of the rules and of the recent post, what happened in the Global Wheat competition is going to happen here as well. They will drop prize-eligible teams that broke the rules.
\nThere is a chance they check the gold zone as well, so I'm not taking that risk. Unless the hosts state otherwise.
", "votes": 6, "replies": [ { "id": 2290205, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T16:13:14.343000", "content": "", "votes": 0, "replies": [ { "id": 2290220, "author_name": "Theo Viel", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T16:24:31.680000", "content": "Your ranking goes up as users get removed, gold medals are still handed out.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [] }, { "id": 2290224, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T16:26:15.150000", "content": "", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 2290165, "author_name": "Cody_Null", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T15:45:45.767000", "content": "Agreed, this is an unacceptable situation and these questions absolutely should not go unanswered. Kagglers have put a lot of work into this and its a sad way to see it all end.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [] }, { "id": 2290164, "author_name": "Sinan Calisir", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T15:45:07.363000", "content": "The thing is that they will check probably the top teams if this rule still holds by the end of the competition. But how about the rest of the teams on the leaderboard? We all give a lot of effort and I think it's Kaggle's/hosts' responsibility to make sure that these efforts are not wasted. No one wants to stay behind just because following the rules.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 2290170, "author_name": "Cody_Null", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T15:47:29.710000", "content": "I believe they should at least verify submission compliance for all medal winners if they want to go down this route, otherwise, they should accept submissions anyway as it is not our fault they did not do the initial research.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 2290185, "author_name": "Sinan Calisir", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T16:00:31.703000", "content": "I agree. I don't think they will investigate all the medal winners but the gold ones maybe.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 2290233, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2023-06-06T16:32:44.303000", "content": "", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "2290154": "Since the recent news regarding the ICDAR dataset I've been looking for similar situations on Kaggle competitions in the past and found these two discussions:\n\n- [Discussion 1](https://www.kaggle.com/c/global-wheat-detection/discussion/167298)\n\n> I would like to thank everyone for the active discussion about software licenses on the forum. In discussion with Kaggle, we would like to reiterate that all final submissions must be compliant with the Competition Rules. There are many commonly used permissive open source licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, BSD 3.0, others) that are compatible with the MIT License and therefore are compliant with the Competition Rules. @rwightman provided an informative post with advice for making other permissive open source licenses compliant with the MIT License. More restrictive open source licenses (e.g., GPL 2.0, GPL 3.0, others with similar restrictive characteristics) are not compatible with the MIT License and therefore should not be used in final submissions. There have also been questions about the procedure that will be used to check compliance. After the final submissions, Kaggle will contact the top teams on the private leaderboard and they will be required to demonstrate that their solution is compliant with the Competition Rules. Submissions found to be non-compliant will be removed from the leaderboard.\n\n- [Discussion 2](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/global-wheat-detection/discussion/167140)\n\nIt seems that non compliant solutions have been removed in the past. Very unfortunate situation, since this whole predicament we have found ourselves into could have been easily resolved with a bit of research from the hosts.", "2290183": "From my interpretation of the rules and of the recent post, what happened in the Global Wheat competition is going to happen here as well. They will drop prize-eligible teams that broke the rules. \n\nThere is a chance they check the gold zone as well, so I'm not taking that risk. Unless the hosts state otherwise.", "2290165": "Agreed, this is an unacceptable situation and these questions absolutely should not go unanswered. Kagglers have put a lot of work into this and its a sad way to see it all end.", "2290164": "The thing is that they will check probably the top teams if this rule still holds by the end of the competition. But how about the rest of the teams on the leaderboard? We all give a lot of effort and I think it's Kaggle's/hosts' responsibility to make sure that these efforts are not wasted. No one wants to stay behind just because following the rules.", "2290233": "" } }