-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Other sources for canonical license URIs? #28
Comments
Has anyone heard of this: |
I'd seen that and forgotten about it. We referenced that and a couple of other license standardization efforts in our "Inconsistent XML" paper, here |
There's also the SPDX License List, which provides a URL for each license and an identifier to use in package description files such as npm's package.json. Some of those are marked as being approved by the OSI, who maintain a list of approved licenses. |
There is some Mellon funded work to encode licences for e-journals and other online licences as ONIX-PL http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=d7c2845ca0f154a458ca734fda4cea01f22e8e1e The resulting encodings are being deposited in a platform called 'GOKb' (Global Open Knowledgebase) [disclosure: I work on this project]. There are currently 13 licences from major journal publishers available on through this work (https://gokb.kuali.org/gokb/search/index?qbe=g%3ALicenses&det=&offset=0). You need to create an account on the GOKb system to access these (see https://gokb.kuali.org/gokb/). Each licence hosted on the GOKb system has it's own URL Editeur - the organisation who manage the ONIX-PL standard - have also published an ONIX-PL encoding for CC-BY 3.0 at http://www.editeur.org/141/CC-BY-3.0/ In the UK Jisc (http://www.jisc.ac.uk) is very interested in machine readable licensing and I've got contacts at Jisc, Editeur and GOKb if any of this is of interest and further conversations are desirable. |
I wonder whether we could include all of these in the list and if the uri/url provided in the License tag is not one, then produce a warning? |
Right now, in the Permissions recommendations, we're basically saying that only CC URIs are appropriate. But this might not be accurate, especially regarding supplementary files, including data and code. I know of two other groups that, I believe, are committed to defining stable URIs for licenses:
So, do we want to change the recommendations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: