[ontoiop-forum] Choice of Use License [was: "Dataset description" paper about the OntoIOp registry submitted: questions about license and API4KB]

[Peter Yim]

Hi Christoph & All,


1. As mentioned, I am happy with CC0 too.

2. Since "CC BY 4.0" had made improvement to cover "data" more
adequately (which were lacking in "CC BY 3.0" or previous
versions)[1]. I believe "reservations" from the data community to use
"CC BY" only applies to "CC BY 3.0" or previous versions.

 [1] The main improvements of CC 4.0 compared with CC 3.0. CC 4.0 is
that it now covers database rights, also known as sui generis database
rights ... ref.
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/12/18/cc-by-4-0/ &
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Data

3. I prefer "CC BY 4.0" - the "BY" in particular - because it still
provides "Attribution" while allowing people to do whatever they need
to do with the data (the license is a "gift" license, and "not
viral").

4. I prefer "CC BY 4.0" - the "CC" in particular - because it has been
around for quite a while, properly maintained. It has a great track
record and was created/supported by some of the folks (like Larry
Lessig and John Wilbanks) whom I have a lot of respect for. see also:
https://creativecommons.org/about/history &
https://creativecommons.org/tag/milestone

5. Besides the above reason, see also:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Data#What_is_the_difference_between_the_Open_Data_Commons_licenses_and_the_CC_4.0_licenses.3F

6. While "attribution stacking" may need some (but probably not a
huge) effort to maintain, I think it is only fair to those (like
OntoIOp WG members) who have spent an inordinate amount of time and
energy into creating those data and content, to be properly
attributed.


Again, I defer to the majority preference of the team and the community.


Regards. =ppy
-- 


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Christoph LANGE
<math.semantic.web at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Peter Yim on 2014-10-08 21:33:
>>  > [CL] ... so two reasonable ones remain ... [ ODC 1.0 or CC0]
>>
>> [ppy] besides those two, one might also consider "CC BY 4.0" - see:
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
>
> For data, the normal CC licenses are rather being advised against.
>
> I didn't exactly know why.  However I found help here:
>
> http://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/26/benefits-of-using-cc0-over-cc-by-for-data
>
> http://www.canadensys.net/2012/why-we-should-publish-our-data-under-cc0
> (specifically addresses CC-BY).
>
> In a nutshell: For data, licenses that were not designed for data, have
> impractical constraints.
>
> CC0 is actually more of a waiver than a license; it basically says "do
> whatever you want with the data".
>
> ODC-By, like CC-BY, requires attribution, which may lead to the problem of
> "attribution stacking" when republishing derivatives of data based on a
> republication of derivatives of other data.  However, the attribution
> requirement of ODC-By is easier to satisfy than that of CC-BY.  CC-BY says
> that "you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a
> copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the
> material".  ODC-By makes this a lot simpler: you only have to refer to the
> _dataset_ by name, e.g. "Contains information from the OntoIOp Registry
> (http://purl.net/dol/registry) which is made available under the ODC
> Attribution License".
>
> I personally prefer CC0.  CC0 makes it easiest to reuse our data, and we
> certainly want to promote the reuse of our data.  ODC-By has the advantage
> of advertising our dataset, but OTOH we are deploying the OntoIOp Registry
> as a _linked_ open dataset, in which particularly every item has a link back
> to the top level of the dataset.  Plus, the OntoIOp Registry URIs (e.g.
> http://purl.net/dol/logics/SROIQ) will soon point to Ontohub, where human
> visitors won't see RDF/XML but shiny HTML.  Ontohub currently advertises the
> OOR in its page footer; maybe it could also say "powered by OntoIOp".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department
> Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS
> http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701
>
> → Postdoc position on Linked Data / Enterprise Information Integration
>   with the EIS group at Uni Bonn & Fraunhofer IAIS (Bonn, Germany)
>   http://eis.iai.uni-bonn.de/Jobs – apply until 7 November


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim at cim3.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ontoiop-forum] "Dataset description" paper about the
OntoIOp registry submitted: questions about license and API4KB
To: ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de


Dear Christoph and All,

Thank you very much for the input and the well thought through recommendations.

In particular, re. choice of license ...

> [CL] 1. License of the dataset: A linked open dataset should have a license, which you usually choose from a small set of well-known licenses depending on your requirements.  After some initial research I found the following ones appropriate.  ...  I believe that a share-alike license is too restrictive, so ...

[ppy]  +1 on your disposition ... thank you for doing the research; I
applaud your recommendation.

> [CL] ... so two reasonable ones remain ... [ ODC 1.0 or CC0]

[ppy] besides those two, one might also consider "CC BY 4.0" - see:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Depending on the preference of the majority of the OntoIOp
WG/community, I would be happy with anyone of these three choices -
ODC-1.0, CC0 OR CC-BY-4.0 ... personally, if we are taking a poll,
then I would vote for CC-BY-4.0.

Thanks and regards. =ppy
--


> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de
> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum
> Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum
> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org