Re: Question about schema.org in a triple store?

Renato:

As far as I understand, this refers only to the license of patents, not on the schema itself:

"In addition, if the Sponsors have patent claims that are necessarily infringed by including markup of structured data in a webpage, where the markup is based on and strictly complies with the Schema, they grant an option to receive a license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms without royalty, solely for the purpose of including markup of structured data in a webpage, where the markup is based on and strictly complies with the Schema. The license may be conditioned on reciprocity, defensive termination, defensive suspension, and/or other reasonable terms. In some cases, this website may indicate that some but not all of the Sponsors have recognized a particular extension to the Schema; in those cases, as to that extension, the above rights are granted by only those recognizing Sponsors."

"License" in the part you quote refers IMo to the license on patent claims by the sponsors of schema.org.

So just expanding the license to CC-BY would solve a lot of issues.


Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Martin Hepp

-------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/




On 18 Jul 2014, at 04:09, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

> 
> On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:35, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> 
>> I think a good pragmatic solution to the discussion would be to change the license forschema.org from CC BY-SA to CC BY (without share-alike). 
>> By this, even usages where the result could be considered "derived works" would not have to distribute the result under CC BY-SA again.
> 
> That would be better...but...I think the Schema.Org Sponsors do need to revisit the licensing conditions.
> 
> All CC licenses include a "No additional restrictions" clause that says "You may not apply legal terms that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits" [1]
> 
> Yet the Schema.Org terms [2] include "The license may be conditioned on reciprocity, defensive termination, defensive suspension, and/or other reasonable terms"
> 
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
> 
> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> [2] http://schema.org/docs/terms.html

Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 09:13:03 UTC