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

Re: Schema usage and licensing

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:06:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz5tzSW1mDef2zWOD51G-WT4vypp-xsvHoq-gcJ3BWe1cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Kost <rkost@thematix.com>
Cc: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com>
I am no legal expert but I have had experience of similar discussions in
another domain.

I believe that at the level of code (html, RDFa, Microdata, JSON-LD) the
use of the canonical URIs for Schema.org terms - e.g.  vocab=“
http://schema.org/”, itemtype=“http://schema.org/Book”,  “@context”: “
http://schema.org” - is sufficient attribution in the terms of the licence.

If you wanted to print all the Schema.org terms and their definitions in a
physical book, it would be different, where there would be the expectation
of an attribution paragraph on an early page.

~Richard.


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 10 February 2016 at 14:43, Robert Kost <rkost@thematix.com> wrote:

> 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 15:07:04 UTC

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