Full text & Files – I can add a license or lack thereof

[mietcls]

Story

I can add a license or lack thereof

Note; researchtip to be confirmed, can be edited later.

Success criteria

• [x] I can select a license
  • [x] I can select CC licenses
  • [x] CC0 (1.0)
  • [x] CC BY (4.0)
  • [x] CC BY-SA (4.0)
  • [x] CC BY-NC (4.0)
  • [x] CC BY-ND (4.0)
  • [x] CC BY-NC-SA (4.0)
  • [x] CC BY-NC-ND (4.0)
  • [x] I can select there is no license to reuse the documents, when the rights holder has kept the copyright. "In copyright (no license)"
  • [x] For now, I can still select "I don't know" "I don't know the status of the copyright for this publication"
  • [x] I can indicate there is a license, it is just not an option in this list "The license is not listed here"

Related #659

Out of scope

• When I select Other license, I can input it in a different field

Image

Code example

View full modal example at https://github.com/ugent-library/biblio-backend/issues/650

Title

<h3 class="mb-3">How can other people <strong>reuse</strong> your document?</h3>

Select

<div class="form-row">
  <div class="form-group col-md-6">
    <label class="col-form-label" for="license">
      License for reuse granted by the rights holder
      <a class="text-muted mx-2" href="#" data-container="body" data-toggle="popover-custom" data-placement="right" data-popover-content="#licenses-tooltip">
        <i class="if if-info-circle if--small"></I>
        <span class="sr-only">More info</span>
      </a>
    </label>
    <select class="custom-select form-control" name="license">
      <option></option>
      <option value="CC0-1.0">CC0 (1.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-4.0">CC BY (4.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-SA-4.0">CC BY-SA (4.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-NC-4.0">CC BY-NC (4.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-ND-4.0">CC BY-ND (4.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0">CC BY-NC-SA (4.0)</option>
      <option value="CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0">CC BY-NC-ND (4.0)</option>
      <option value="copy-held">In copyright (no license)</option>
      <option value="Other">The license is not listed here</option>
      <option value="Other">I don't know the status of the copyright for this publication</option>
    </select>
  </div>
</div>

Tooltip

https://biblio-ugent-prototype-emily-v2.vercel.app/styleguide/b-popover.html

Divider

<div class="c-divider"></div>

[mietcls]

After consulting with a bunch of stakeholders (Open access team members, review team members, Sarah, Development team, ...)

In copyright (no license) We will not make a difference any longer for copyright between the rights holders; as this is a separate information. It does not matter who decided on the license when asking for a license. If we make clear in the interface the rights holder does this, there is no confusion. We can be agnostic about it in our interface.

"I don't know" We will keep the "I don't know" flag for now, because it is used by some faculties and is handy as a flag for some reviewers. Long term we should find a way to help people navigate this decisions without having to resort to "I don't know".

Introduction of the flag "Other license (the license is not in this list)"

• Right now there is no way to indicate that there is a license, but it is just not an option in the list. This can create a confusing situation, as it happens – and now there is a way out.
• This will help the library discover whether we are missing out on important licenses.
• We will not ask people to enter this license in a free-text field. This information would have to be shown in our public facing front-office, and there is a risk of having irrelevant information online for some time. This information should never be live, but we can use this as a way to start our analysis and figure out which license has been granted.
• The reviewers already note down the other license in a "Additional information" field, so we can use this in a later stage in our analysis.

[netsensei]

This has been implemented. Awaiting feedback.

[mietcls]

Tested this live today during a test workshop and it worked, reviewers will do a double test later – but is good for now!