Add drop down for metadata field Intellectual Rights

[kbraak]

When inserting metadata in the Intellectual Rights field, it would be useful to have
a drop down menu with options of a few licenses available to publish data (e.g., CCZero,
ODPL, etc.). By selecting one of the licenses, the text from the license populates
the text box so that the user can read it and understand the details of the license.
It might be a good idea to pre-populate the field with a default license (e.g. the
CCZero public domain license). 

This would ensure the rights field is almost always being set.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-05-02 13:35:28

[kbraak]

Could you list all the licenses that should be included in the drop-down?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by htobon on 2011-05-03 13:52:14

[kbraak]

This license should govern the data that is being published, correct?

I don't think there are that many licenses covering this: CC0 and ODbL are the only
ones I know. All others (CC-BY-SA, etc. don't cover data). Maybe it's worth taking
a look at the licenses that were chosen in the past and offering these here (even though
it may not make sense legally).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lars.francke on 2011-05-05 13:20:47

[kbraak]

Just found this: http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/
All licenses marked as "data" should make sense but I didn't read them all.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lars.francke on 2011-05-05 13:21:31

[kbraak]

(No text was entered with this change)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by htobon on 2011-05-05 15:12:32

• Labels added: Priority-Low, Milestone-Release2.0.3

[kbraak]

Below are 4 licenses that apply to data for our consideration. Included with each one
is a link to more information about the license, and the text that could be inserted
into the IP text field to go towards applying the license. Each one has its own best
practices for applying the license, such as these for CC0: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Creator.
At least for the Public Domain ones, I read that it would be good to include a copy
of the text of the license as part of the downloadable data (in our case the DwC-A).

1. Creative Commons CCZero
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Text to apply the license:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CCZero 1.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

2. Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL)
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/

Text to apply the license:
This {DATA(BASE)} is made available under the Public Domain Dedication and License
v1.0 whose full text can be found at: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/

3. Open Data Commons Attribution License
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/

Text to apply the license:
This {DATA(BASE)-NAME} is made available under the Open Data Commons Attribution License:
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/

4. Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL)
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/

Text to apply the license:
This {DATA(BASE)-NAME} is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/.
Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents
License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/

A further thought, is that we should include a disclaimer when the user selecting from
the drop down of licenses that reads: "You should only apply [CC0] to your own work
unless you have the necessary rights to apply CC0 to another person’s work." 

Also, we want the user read the text of the license and understand it and understood
that by using it they agree to dedicate their work to the public domain. Maybe a popup
that asks the user if they have read and understood the license before they can select
the license would be good.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-05-16 16:13:32

[kbraak]

Kyle told me last time that it would be very convenient to have these licenses within
a vocabulary hosted by GBIF.

I think for now, we should implement this manually in the web file.

I have a doubt. What must be entered in the license text area? the entire content of
the license? or just the text to apply the license with the link?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by htobon on 2011-07-08 15:16:40

[kbraak]

The user selected  license to implement in their work, each time the user select an
option in the drop down (licenses options), the textarea populated. When the user saves
the additional metadata, you will see a message asking if the user read and understood
the license. 

I welcome your comments about implementation of the licenses.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-07-14 13:26:21

[kbraak]

it's done in r3407.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-07-14 13:27:13

[kbraak]

(No text was entered with this change)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-07-14 14:57:52

---

• Attachment: additional1.png
  
• Attachment: additional2.png
  

[kbraak]

Very nice. 

I like the default being set to CCZero. 

One change: the user needs to have the option to enter their own statement without
using a license. Please change entry "Licenses available to publish data" to "No license
selected" and ensure that when this entry is selected, that the user is not presented
with the popup asking whether they've understood the license.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-07-28 15:00:50

[kbraak]

(No text was entered with this change)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by htobon on 2011-07-28 15:07:40

[kbraak]

(No text was entered with this change)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-08-02 14:34:45

• Labels added: Priority-Critical
• Labels removed: Priority-High

[kbraak]

It's done in r3434.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-08-02 18:08:00

[kbraak]

Further testing reveals another error: After selecting a CCZero license and saving,
I return to the page but imagine I changed my mind and now don't want to select for
any license. I select "No license", save it, but when I return to the page it still
says CCZero. It should have saved "No license". Please let me know when this is fixed
and I can test again. I'm using Version 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT-r3460 and Safari.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-08-22 15:02:01

[kbraak]

This sounds to be a normal behaviour.

The script was implemented using the rule: "...pre-populate the field with a default
license (e.g. the CCZero public domain license)."

So, if user don't select any license and clic the save button, no license will be saved
in EML file. But when user comes back to the Additional Metadata section, the license
text field is going to pre-populate with CCZero license.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by htobon on 2011-08-22 15:51:23

[kbraak]

Saving a completely empty text box means that when I return to that page I should see
an empty text box, not any unsaved content. This is not normal behavior. 

If you select No license, the text box clears, and when the user saves the page, the
content (whether it's empty or not) is saved just as the user desires. Why does this
seem so strange?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-08-23 07:42:43

[kbraak]

The pre-populate action for select a default license (in this case CCZero) was removed.
 With this change, the user can choose  "No license",  and the textfield will be showed
with empty text. The script was implemented in that way because is difficult to know
in which cases the user is visiting the Additional Metadata section at first time or
in wich cases not. Currently, the eml generator (eml.ftl) in dwca project is removing
the intellectual rights label if there is not information in that field.

If we want to come back with the pre-population, Hector would need to make a little
change in the eml.ftl file. But the implication of this would be to generate a new
dwca release. r3468.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-08-25 16:03:46

[kbraak]

Thank you for your comments, we'll test and report back.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-08-26 09:55:13

[kbraak]

Seems to be working fine. One problem though: 

The disclaimer line ("You should only apply [CC0] to your own work unless you have
the necessary rights to apply CC0 to another person\s work.") always uses CC0, and
person's should have an apostrophe not a forward slash. If it's too much trouble to
change the license name for each license selection, perhaps you can just say: "You
should only apply a license to your own work unless you have the necessary rights to
apply it to another person's." 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-09-08 10:42:21

[kbraak]

I have changed the disclaimer message. r3499.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jlthlopez on 2011-09-08 15:13:37

[kbraak]

Verified. This now requires an update to the User Manual where the Additional Metadata
page and IPT is shown/talked about..

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-09-09 10:20:29

• Labels added: UserManual

[kbraak]

User manual updated.

Verified.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kyle.braak on 2011-10-26 20:54:53