search

MIT-LCP / license-and-dua

The PhysioNet Data Use Agreement and License
MIT License
6 stars 12 forks source link

Versioning the license and data use agreement #4

Closed tompollard closed 7 years ago

tompollard commented 7 years ago

It would be good if the license and data use agreement were versioned. These can then be tracked as releases: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/

Do any of the previous iterations of the MIMIC DUA have associated version numbers? If so we can apply the same versioning system.

kpierceHST commented 7 years ago

There have been only two versions of the MIMIC dua, the initial one and the more recent revision. There were no version numbers. Versioning is fine, but I think it would be good to maintain a stable dua text for as long as possible. Probably we should figure out a way to let users know when the dua changes, and ask them to agree to the new version or relinquish access rights. But that will be tough to manage since they may have already downloaded the data....

Ken

On 12/12/16 3:41 PM, Tom Pollard wrote:

It would be good if the license and data use agreement were versioned. These can then be tracked as releases: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/

Do any of the previous iterations of the MIMIC DUA have associated version numbers? If so we can apply the same versioning system.

tompollard commented 7 years ago

There have been only two versions of the MIMIC dua, the initial one and the more recent revision. There were no version numbers.

Thanks Ken, in this case are you happy with the first version being "v1.0" and the current version "v1.1"?

Versioning is fine, but I think it would be good to maintain a stable dua text for as long as possible. Probably we should figure out a way to let users know when the dua changes, and ask them to agree to the new version or relinquish access rights. But that will be tough to manage since they may have already downloaded the data....

I agree, and we will avoid updates as far as possible. If we start by adding version numbers to the DUA then we can figure out how to keep track of what people have signed as we go. Does that sound okay?

kpierceHST commented 7 years ago

On 12/13/16 3:48 PM, Tom Pollard wrote:

There have been only two versions of the MIMIC dua, the initial one and the more recent revision. There were no version numbers.

Thanks Ken, in this case are you happy with the first version being "v1.0" and the current version "v1.1"?

The two versions seem more like 1.0 and 2.0 to me. The added requirement "If I openly disseminate my results, I will also contribute the code used to produce those results to a defined PhysioNet repository (physionet.org/physiotools/mimic-code/) that is open to the research community." is significant. I guess it depends on how significant anticipated changes might be, in proportion.

Versioning is fine, but I think it would be good to maintain a stable dua text for as long as possible. Probably we should figure out a way to let users know when the dua changes, and ask them to agree to the new version or relinquish access rights. But that will be tough to manage since they may have already downloaded the data....

I agree, and we will avoid updates as far as possible. If we start by adding version numbers to the DUA then we can figure out how to keep track of what people have signed as we go. Does that sound okay?

Yes, I can add a field to the dua that indicates version number. Or we can use the date of dua submission as a proxy for version number.

Ken

tompollard commented 7 years ago

My thought was that we could introduce a new major version when we consider an update to be important enough for existing users to sign the agreement again. e.g. in this case, although the change is significant, we didn't require users to sign the agreement again, so my preference would be v1.0 and v1.1. Either is fine though, so let me know if you still prefer v1.0 and v2.0 and we can go with that.

kpierceHST commented 7 years ago

Okay, then 1.0->1.1 is fine. But in fact I do think this was a big enough change that, if we could have done so, we should have requested users to sign again. But we don't have the means to require them, or really even to ask them, to sign again, since we don't necessarily have usable e-mail addresses for them. (The PhysioNetWorks username is an e-mail address, but not necessarily one that's current.) Nor, really, do we have a way to enforce the added requirement in the latest dua....

On 12/13/16 5:24 PM, Tom Pollard wrote:

My thought was that we could introduce a new major version when we consider an update to be important enough for existing users to sign the agreement again. e.g. in this case, although the change is significant, we didn't require users to sign the agreement again, so my preference would be v1.0 and v1.1. Either is fine though, so let me know if you still prefer v1.0 and v2.0 and we can go with that.

tompollard commented 7 years ago

These first two releases of the DUA are now available from the following links:

The final (3rd) part of the version number is intended for very minor changes, like typos, wording fixes etc.

We can work on the next update, which will hopefully be more generalizable (applicable to eICU as well as MIMIC), perhaps with support for optional restrictions (as discussed in #6).