license #1
Comments
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
I think in Omaha we should make the license selection part of the schema input. |
|
Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins
|
|
Thanks! Key Points (I think):
From: AniKarenina [email protected] [email protected] Yes, we decided we should make it part of the schema. But if we had The multiple-use-cases issue is that if someone is creating a data set On July 19, 2016 at 1:44:06 PM, Sean P. Goggins
— |
|
How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins [email protected]
Yuvi Panda T |
|
I think the SPDX standard that Matt Germonprez shared with us has an option From: Yuvi Panda [email protected] [email protected] How about requiring a license, but having a specific value for On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Sean P. Goggins [email protected]
Yuvi Panda T — |
|
+1, so should make license required, and have whatever the UI for making On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Sean P. Goggins [email protected]
Yuvi Panda T |
|
I think the 2 non-license categories are probably “no known license” I agree that the differentiation is useful, but if it’s a required On July 20, 2016 at 10:28:52 AM, Yuvi Panda ([email protected]) wrote:
|
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: