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

Re: Schema usage and licensing

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=5SeaGqJNrSaKEcBaBR5-uHwKWiWsA9mGYKhwr3gnQ2cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com>
Cc: Robert Kost <rkost@thematix.com>, "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 12 February 2016 at 16:14, Tati Chevron <tati@gotati.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 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.

The purpose of schema.org is to improve structured data on the Web by
removing difficulties that previously made things hard for publishers
- e.g. fragmented and partial vocabularies, and complex markup
notations. Making a big fuss about getting detailed explicit credit
everywhere would be very much out of line with the nature, spirit and
purpose of the project. Many millions of Web pages already contain
references to the project via its URLs - this is an overwhelming level
of credit and visibility spread across the public Web. We could not
have hoped for more and in my view have no need for more than this.
The whole point is to make things easier and CC-BY was chosen on the
thinking that URLs suffice.

I doubt there is much value to be gained from doing a line-by-line
reading of the CC-BY license here on the project list. However if
community members do want to continue this discussion in detail I'd
suggest taking it to the issue tracker in Github -
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 18:44:44 UTC

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