Open njullien opened 9 years ago
libbyh
commented
9 years ago The group quickly decided to leave license optional in case a depositor didn't have one in mind. We thought choosing a license was a confusing process that may actively discourage deposits. Anyone else want to weigh in here? Another option is a default license with an option to choose a different one, but I'm not sure what default license makes sense either.
njullien
commented
9 years ago hello,
actually, a medium way to do so could be to use the creative common framework, https://creativecommons.org/choose/, which is quite easy to answer, and which fits quite well with what we want to do in this data factory. In the other hand, I agree that it is not the core of the problem here, even I still consider it important
njullien
commented
8 years ago Still ready to advocate for asking for a license (if you want as optional in the jason), but you have to know that in the law, if there is nothing, by default you cannot do anything
libbyh
commented
8 years ago We discussed permissions again this meeting and ended up putting it under "permissions" in "file". It's a free text field that's optional. The discussion was about whether licenses or permissions applied to individual files or to a set of files. We came up with a few use cases where a set of files would have different permissions on each (e.g., some code written by someone else and licensed under MIT, some other content written by the depositor using CC-BY). We punted a discussion about whether the OCDF wants to maintain a list of licenses and opted to see what people put in this field instead.
yuvipanda
commented
8 years ago SPDX maintains a nice standard of licenses, listed at https://github.com/sindresorhus/spdx-license-list/blob/master/spdx.json and http://spdx.org/licenses/. I would say a license is required, since without it it's very unclear who can use the data for what. Suggesting a default license usually helps alleviate the 'which one do I choose?' problem.
sgoggins
commented
8 years ago I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
AniKarenina
commented
8 years ago Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
sgoggins
commented
8 years ago Thanks!
Key Points (I think):
From: AniKarenina notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:17:40 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233962808, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXLx4aoqzXt4etVK9lr4-a0089eSsl_ks5qXi4EgaJpZM4E0tef .
yuvipanda
commented
8 years ago How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for 'unknown-license'? This differentiates 'oh yeah, we should license this thing, I forgot' from 'oh, I just found this'
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins notifications@github.com wrote:
Thanks!
Key Points (I think):
- Do not require a license.
- Put the license in the schema
From: AniKarenina notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:17:40 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233962808
, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXLx4aoqzXt4etVK9lr4-a0089eSsl_ks5qXi4EgaJpZM4E0tef
.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233963675, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23oK9GomOmDpTP-A4oaKfX1G0RN-Iks5qXi6qgaJpZM4E0tef .
Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
sgoggins
commented
8 years ago I think the SPDX standard that Matt Germonprez shared with us has an option like this called “No Assertion”, which explicitly says, “I am not ignoring you, lovely little schema field. Do not feel hurt. I simply have nothing to talk about with you right now."
From: Yuvi Panda notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:28:52 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for 'unknown-license'? This differentiates 'oh yeah, we should license this thing, I forgot' from 'oh, I just found this'
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins notifications@github.com wrote:
Thanks!
Key Points (I think):
- Do not require a license.
- Put the license in the schema
From: AniKarenina notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:17:40 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233962808
, or mute the thread <
.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233963675>, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23oK9GomOmDpTP-A4oaKfX1G0RN-Iks5qXi6qgaJpZM4E0tef
.
Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233966198, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXLxwOewnTGFkVDjIXhtbSAPFUR_n1kks5qXjCkgaJpZM4E0tef .
yuvipanda
commented
8 years ago +1, so should make license required, and have whatever the UI for making this have a checkbox for 'I do not know' which sets it to No Assertion.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Sean P. Goggins notifications@github.com wrote:
I think the SPDX standard that Matt Germonprez shared with us has an option like this called “No Assertion”, which explicitly says, “I am not ignoring you, lovely little schema field. Do not feel hurt. I simply have nothing to talk about with you right now."
From: Yuvi Panda notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:28:52 AM
To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for 'unknown-license'? This differentiates 'oh yeah, we should license this thing, I forgot' from 'oh, I just found this'
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins <notifications@github.com
wrote:
Thanks!
Key Points (I think):
- Do not require a license.
- Put the license in the schema
From: AniKarenina notifications@github.com notifications@github.com Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification reply@reply.github.com reply@reply.github.com Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:17:40 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com ocdx-specification@noreply.github.com Cc: Sean P. Goggins s@goggins.com s@goggins.com, Comment comment@noreply.github.com comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <
https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233962808
, or mute the thread <
.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233963675 , or mute the thread <
.
Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233966198
, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXLxwOewnTGFkVDjIXhtbSAPFUR_n1kks5qXjCkgaJpZM4E0tef
.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233967800, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB23qIRW96hjJLT7No_gtgg8Ethr4GTks5qXjHWgaJpZM4E0tef .
Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
AniKarenina
commented
8 years ago I think the 2 non-license categories are probably “no known license” (because I looked really hard but there’s nothing to go on) or “other terms specified” (because there are terms of use but no license). The second one is definitely different from “no assertion” but not sure that the first case is.
I agree that the differentiation is useful, but if it’s a required field that means the explanation of any “not a license” options just needs to be made very clear in documentation or it will confuse people.
On July 20, 2016 at 10:28:52 AM, Yuvi Panda (notifications@github.com) wrote:
How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for 'unknown-license'? This differentiates 'oh yeah, we should license this thing, I forgot' from 'oh, I just found this'
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins wrote:
Thanks!
Key Points (I think):
- Do not require a license.
- Put the license in the schema
From: AniKarenina Reply: OCDX/OCDX-Specification
Date: July 20, 2016 at 9:17:40 AM To: OCDX/OCDX-Specification
Cc: Sean P. Goggins , Comment
Subject: Re: [OCDX/OCDX-Specification] license (#1)
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had decided it should be “required” (I can’t recall) then I think that part of it is not so reasonable.
The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set and record, then encouraging them to explicitly license the data is ideal. But if it’s a found data set, then there may be no license even in the cases where there are explicit terms of use.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins (notifications@github.com) wrote:
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233710635
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233962808
, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXLx4aoqzXt4etVK9lr4-a0089eSsl_ks5qXi4EgaJpZM4E0tef
.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub , or mute the thread
.
Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/OCDX/OCDX-Specification/issues/1#issuecomment-233966198
Hello,
if the dataset is to be distributed, it has to be distributed by an authorized organization / person. So we need in the metadata a copyright, consequently a licence would be needed, I think