Re: License for DCAT vocabulary?

https://github.com/catalogue-of-services-isa/CPSV-AP/issues/38#issuecomment-566148135


It would be sensible to coordinate these discussions

CC BY 4.0  makes sense

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 18:10, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/16/2019 12:53 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> > Hi Alejandra,
> >
> > At the moment in the DCAT TTL and the other RDF serializations, we have
> the
> > statement
> >
> >> dct:license <
> > https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
> >
> > ;"
> >
> > If I remember well, we inserted this link when validating of DCAT by mean
> > of OOPS http://oops.linkeddata.es/.
> >
> > I do not know if we want to change it or if you think the license should
> > also be mentioned elsewhere.
>
> Use it. It's the same one as the DCAT2 document itself. You cannot be
> more restrictive than this license in any case. If you have reasons to
> be more restrictive, I'll be curious to know why.
>
> Philippe
>
>
> >   Cheers,
> >   Riccardo
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <
> > alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> We have not assigned a license to the DCAT vocabulary and I think it
> would
> >> be important to set one.
> >>
> >> I was trying to check if W3C has a policy around this, but I found this
> >> thread from the PROV list:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2018Dec/0004.html
> >> but it seems that there was no conclusion.
> >>
> >> FYI, many of the OBO foundry ontologies (http://www.obofoundry.org/)
> use
> >> CC-BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which I think
> would
> >> be an appropriate license?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Alejandra
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> >> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be
> >> clean.
> >
> >
> >
>
>