Replies: 14 comments
-
|
Note that in the ontology world, we use Option 5. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@matentzn IANAL (blah blah blah), but I can give a little perspective maybe from the what the RDP has done. You are correct that Option 5 is what's done in a lot of cases. Essentially, it is an attempt to offload the responsibilities of data integration onto somebody else. This is easy and has a lot of precedent, but is not satisfying in a lot of ways. Let's maybe explore the space where that is not on the table for a little bit. As a starter, I want to highlight three things: 1) that CC0 is not a license, but a tool to attempt to dedicate a work into the public domain (or create something that works the same way); 2) that license terms are immutable (without permission/a new license from the rights holder); 3) a work without any other information to the contrary is considered to under standard copyright protection in the US and anything you do outside of that is at your own risk. To clarify what is being asked here, what is the nature of M3 and what do "mapping sets" and "merge" might mean here? I'm taking this to just mean the data. There is no clear rule for what is "fair use" versus "infringing use" versus "correct use" outside of negotiations or a court room, so it's sometimes easier to think about the data overall in the beginning. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is this to mean that M1 is CC0, M2 is CC BY, and then the Options are using the terms for M3 as a variable? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Imagine two mapping sets (literally a set of ontology mappings), M1 and M2: M1:
M2:
M1 is published under CC-0 (public domain) and M2 is published under CC-BY. Now we have a process MERGE that combines the two to M3: M3:
Lets assume for now the creation of M3 (a derivative?) itself was correct use according to licenses (its probably not, but lets set that aside for now). Concretely, I would like to know what our official merge tool should do with the original license metadata. Include it? Drop it? In the ontology world, we usually drop it. But you could include the license constraints as some kind of column:
or you could make a comment:
I know there wont be any 100% answers, but I have no idea at all what we should do here. I will be lobbying, pressing for CC-BY (or CC-0) across the board to make it not more complex then CC-BY vs no license. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@matentzn Yeah, uniform and sensible licensing would make so many things so much easier. I think this case is pretty easy though. Forgive the verbiage. Okay, so it looks like that for the sake of simplicity you have M1 as CC0 and M2 as CC BY (4.0); M3 is a combination of the two. In the US, and hopefully most reasonable places, M1's CC0 can essentially be read as public domain, so you can do whatever you want with it. M2's copyrights are held by a copyright holder; let's call them CH2. CH2 has granted you a certain set of abilities to work with M2, including creating derivative works, assuming that you adhere to the terms of CC BY 4.0. Great. CH2 does not hold copyright over this entire work, just portions. The new attribution could be essentially "derivative of M2 with added public domain data". I could also imagine that for complicated derivative works, one could have "OBO Foundry" be a new rights holder and is licensing it under CC BY 4.0, so that the attribution would be like "portions of this file are derivative of M2 and OBO Foundry, CC by 4.0". Following your example above, the derivative has portions that are CC BY 4.0 no matter what, as you have no other clear avenue from CH2 (i.e. it cannot overall be public domain). It might be most clear to have the entire derived work under CC BY 4.0 then. mapping_set_id: M3
license: CC-BY-4.0
license_comment: This is a derived product, including M1, dedicated to the public domain. M2 title, author, source, license (TASL).
derived from:
- M1
- M2A simple CC exercise (and some additional info) on this can be found here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution Does this help clear anything up? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Looking at your original five Options, I think we need an Option 6: M3 is a derivative work of a CC BY work (M2) and public domain data (M1); the new work may be CC BY as long as the attribution information is kept for M2. For the sake of cleanliness, I'd still note that the additional public domain data was the CC0-declared M1. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, this is very helpful. Am I correct in assuming that someone deriving M4 (sic) from M3 needs to preserve the attribution to M2? Instead of Would this satisfy your sense of CC-BY spirit? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@matentzn Yes, I believe that is a correct interpretation: copyright and license are immutable unless new terms are negotiated--no matter how many derivatives are produced, they preserve rights of all the originating sources. "Spirit" and what is reasonable can be hard to define. For myself, I don't have a feeling how this all hangs together and what the overall context is, so I'm grasping at straws a bit. It might be good to make sure that whatever you come up with is flexible enough to be revisited in the future. I'm assuming that the proposed As a pedantic (but I think important) note, CC0 is not a license, but (in the US) a declaration tool for the public domain--there are no terms to be adhered to, but rather it is a public record that the author of the work is saying they are giving it to all to use however they want, without license. I think it is nice (and a good idea) to note that for one's records, but one could not note it as well. (BTW, did you possibly flip M1 and M2 in your example above? I'm not sure why CC0 would have more metadata than CC BY 4.0) Looking at the best practices as an example from the above: Title, Author, Source, and License. Looking at the actual wording of how attribution must be specified as defined in the text of the license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode): As long as the A good summary of requirements for 4.0 (which is materially different than previous versions) can be found from CC here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart . I feel like what you have covers a lot of that. I wonder about things like license files (e.g. LICENSE.md) and how to concat them, but that may not apply to your use case. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes. Wow, ok.. We are using these license all day every day and no one I know has ever read them.. The legal code on CC-BY is pretty clear I would say, but it seems really inconvenient to having to include a "copyright license" separate to the reference to the CC-BY license itself. Do you understand what exactly that would mean for this example?
I know no one that does this:
Should we? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Again, this gets into me not being a lawyer and this not being legal advice, but I think context and what would be considered reasonable for the context is worth looking at. From my understanding, these are mapping files with embedded metadata that are intended to be used as such and did not have a separate license file to begin with, I think that you could probably just continue to follow that pattern if it seems like that's what the authors originally intended.
To take a little step up from the details, the point of all these licenses is to understand and then respect the wishes of the authors/copyright holders within the context that all this is taking place of their data. I think that if you are taking all this into account and working with clear CC licenses and going along with their terms that you are unlikely to run into issues as this is exactly the kinds of things that the authors wanted for their work in the first place: credit and passing it along to the next person with the same rights. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok. This is very helpful. I am assuming that as long as there is no metadata element that captures additional stuff like warranties and anything beyond cc on the copyright issue, then I don't need to worry about copying it. We simply restrict the potential of data providers to express themselves to a simple reference to a license, and that we will preserve. If users in the future need to express more than that, they will first have to request a suitable metadata element, and then we can refer back to this issue here. I know that restricting the metadata, legally, is probably not enough. If somewhen were to publish a mapping file with a LICENSE.md that would probably overrule all of what I posit here, but the idea here should be that the data files are self-contained, so no information relevant to their usage should live outside of it. Thank you very much @kltm! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@matentzn That's pretty much my lay read of it. Of course, this would only be for talking about CC BY 4.0 and CC0. Trouble could happen if people do things like say "refer to the license in this directory" and the like, but as long as the license is just a URL, it makes keeping the reference easy. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As it stands, this has to be handled by the users and creators of mapping sets themselves. We have no way to create a legally sound recommendation, and also no way to anticipate different legal requirements. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
in case anyone is interested, my solution was to not use the mapping set-level annotations. instead, I propagage the license through to the invidual mappings, so each row is self-documenting (this is what semra does) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Let's say we have two mapping sets: M1 and M2. M1 is published under CC-0, and M2 is published under CC-BY.
What should happen when we merge M1 and M2 to M3 with our SSSOM python toolkit?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions