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

Re: Schema usage and licensing

From: Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:14:59 +0000
To: Robert Kost <rkost@thematix.com>
Cc: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160212161459.GA1855@mercury.lan>

>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.

Ah OK, I was reading section 1a and assuming that a webpage marked up with Schema would be considered an, "Adaption".  If that's not the case, then you seem to be right that the CC license would not extend to cover the non-Schema content.

>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.

It goes further than that, section 4a specifically requires a copy of the license or a URI pointing to it to be included.  This makes me skeptical that simply including the canonical URIs in the actual markup meets the CC license requirements.

I don't see anybody actually doing this in the case of Schema usage, so presumably either I'm wrong or other people are just ignoring the license wording and it's never been enforced. 

But for example, if you look at the 'schema use notice' on the dublincore.org site, which is under a similar CC license, there is a clear request to include a specific notice in software and it's documentaion.

For this reason I decided to mention the issue on this list.

Tati Chevron.
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 16:18:32 UTC

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