- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:59:45 -0500
- To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>, Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Actually, after checking with our legal, it appears that we're currently infringing the Working Group charter for all of the publications of DCAT 2 since the FPWD in 2018. We didn't catch this up at the time (oops). [[ This Working Group will use the W3C Document license for all its deliverables. ]] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter Now, this wording is also in the proposed charter of the Working Group: https://www.w3.org/2019/11/proposed-dx-wg-charter-2019.html So, I suggest that folks carefully review the charter and propose to change this to: [[ This Working Group will use the W3C Software and Document license for all its deliverables. ]] Assuming we do update the new charter, the Director can then approves the REC with the permissive license. Using CC BY 4 for the TTL will be fine. Philippe On 12/16/2019 2:08 PM, pedro winstley wrote: > 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 19:59:49 UTC