RE: License for DCAT vocabulary?

(Note that I distinguish between the Rec document - which definitely should have the W3C license - and the RDF representation of the vocabulary. The RDF is not software, nor is it a traditional document for which most licenses were constructed. IMO CC0 is best for the RDF.) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) 
Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2019 10:52
To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>; 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>
Subject: RE: License for DCAT vocabulary?

This piece I would like to clarify: 

> provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the work **or 
> portions thereof**

Unclear what this means in connection with someone using elements from an RDF vocabulary. 
Does there have to be a license statement on every mention? 
Clearly that would be silly, but the license could be read that way. 
It is concerns like this which have led Wikidata to reject any ontology that has a license more onerous than CC-0. 

While I think that Wikidata are being a bit extreme, I would concede their main concern. 
If we want the RDF vocabaulary to be widely used, then the license should be maximally permissive. 
(The 'attribution' requirement is met effectively through the URIs being in a W3 domain, which can be dereferenced to get details of the license information.)

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2019 07:00
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>
Subject: Re: License for DCAT vocabulary?

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#issueco

> mment-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-docu

>>> ment
>>>
>>> ;"
>>>
>>> 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 23:55:22 UTC