W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Schema usage and licensing

From: Robert Kost <rkost@thematix.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:43:35 +0000
To: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
CC: Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com>
Message-ID: <CB7AFE35-85C4-4322-95C9-BE5F10C60D0F@thematix.com>
Hi Tati - 

Concerning #2, in my opinion, one needs to distinguish between the Schema.org subject matter (i.e., the Schema taxonomy itself) and the material to which it is applied (your website).  The CC license relates to the “the Work,” which is defined as:

"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License.


So, you don’t bring your website into the orbit of the Work (Schema.org) simply by virtue of using it.  If you were to publish your own extensions that incorporate or derive from Schema, it might fall under this license.

Your item #1 is potentially more troubling.  The CC site summarizes this requirement:

If supplied, 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.


Is this “supplied” at Schema.org?  Interesting that “schema.org” and its uses are self-referential URIs.  






On 2/8/16, 5:31 AM, "Tati Chevron" <tati@gotati.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Could somebody clarify exactly how the licensing agreement described at
>schema.org is supposed to apply to websites making use of this standard?
>
>The schema.org terms of service note that, [the rights are],
>"...licensed to third parties under the Creative Commons
>Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 3.0)".
>
>I assume that the intent is to allow unrestricted usage of valid schema
>markup, but protect the published standard.
>
>However, my understanding is that a strict interpretation of this
>licensing requirement would:
>
>1. Require any website making use of the schema vocabulary to include an
>attribution to schema.org.
>
>2. Cause the content of any website making use of the published schema
>vocabulary to fall under the same license.
>
>So far, despite much interest in including such semantic markup in all
>of my projects, I've completely avoided the standard described at
>schema.org for these reasons.
>
>Is this an open, un-encumbered standard or should I develop my own?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-- 
>Tati Chevron.
>http://www.gotati.com/

>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 14:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:23 UTC