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

Re: Schema usage and licensing

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:59:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4xeQav8gA+2dCn+LCLg=sEfrZ8SfdxTGiYSbO0qRC4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 8 February 2016 at 10:31, 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.

To the best of my knowledge no party involved in the project has ever
taken such a strict interpretation. However it is in the nature of
schema.org markup that uses of it naturally include URLs such as
http://schema.org/ which would already address such a requirement.


> 2. Cause the content of any website making use of the published schema
> vocabulary to fall under the same license.

Similarly, I don't believe anyone reads things that way.

Dan

> 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 15:00:25 UTC

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