[open-bibliography] Open Access licences and the OpenDOAR Policy Tool

[David Shotton]

Dear Christopher,

Reading your remark "but the license will not appear until they pick 
one.", I am reminded of the very nice OpenDOAR Policies Tool interface 
(http://www.opendoar.org/tools/en/policies.php) provided by Peter 
Millington to permit users to choose access policies for their 
repositories, of which I am sure you are aware. 

Last August I wrote to Peter about extending the OpenDOAR Policy Tool 
for assigning RDF metadata according to Science Commons data licences.  
He replied:

    Your proposed adaptation of the /Open/DOAR Policy Tool for licenses
    for depositing data in open access repositories is interesting
    and potentially of more general benefit to /Open/DOAR users. I would
    be happy therefore to provide you with the necessary PHP source code
    and advice.

Well, this is not something I am able to do myself, nor have manpower to 
devote to at present, but perhaps you or someone in OKF or CC can accept 
Peter's kind offer and make something of this.

David


Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> Maybe I should just teach the controversy then?
>
> The decision for our local RDF data will have to be made "above my pay 
> grade". But I'll try to frame it as between public domain, -by and 
> -by-nocommercial
>
> I'm about to do the first RDF release of the software and today we are 
> running a training course in EPrints & Linked data at Southampton. Any 
> suggestions welcome! I'll happily add more suggested licenses to the 
> default release of the software, and a link to the discussion too!
>
> Partly, though, the data consuming community will need to nag each admin 
> to add a license as EPrints 3.2.1 will provide RDF out of the box, but 
> the license will not appear until they pick one.
>
> Rufus Pollock wrote:
>   
>> On 25 March 2010 21:41, David Shotton <david.shotton at zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Dear Christopher,
>>>
>>> There has been considerable discussion, I understand, between OKF and CC
>>> about data licenses, which may be still ongoing.  CC is now recommending
>>> their "CCZero" license for datasets, since this avoids the potential problem
>>> of managing the "attribution stacking" that would result from automatic
>>> data  aggregation from several sources using conventional attribution
>>> licenses of any kind.  You  are advised to take these arguments into
>>> consideration before deciding what to do for EPrints.
>>>     
>>>       
>> I must say here that here at the OKF we really don't think that
>> attribution-stacking is an issue.
>>
>> We are also consider attribution-sharealike type licenses as "open" --
>> and Open Data Commons, which is an OKF supported project, produces
>> such licenses. There is a ongoing, lengthy and friendly disagreement
>> on this score between John Wilbanks and us on this matter (I can point
>> people to more background on this if they want it :) )
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> For FlyTED (http://www.fly disagreement on this sc had long disagreements-ted.org), which as you know uses the EPrints
>>> software platform, we have, after discussions with John Wilbanks, adopted
>>> CCZero licenses for metadata and thumbnails, and normal CC attribution
>>> licences for high resolution images.
>>>     
>>>       
>> We think public domain licenses whether the PDDL or the CCZero to be
>> great too :)
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Dryad (http://datadryad.org/repo), which is a repository for datasets linked
>>> to journal articles, has also adopted CCZero licenses.
>>>     
>>>       
>> That's great to hear.
>>
>> Rufus
>>   
>>     
>
>   
-- 

Dr David Shotton                                                      
 david.shotton at zoo.ox.ac.uk <mailto:mailto:david.shotton at zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Reader in Image Bioinformatics

Image Bioinformatics Research Group                                 
http://ibrg.zoo.ox.ac.uk
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford                  tel: 
+44-(0)1865-271193
South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK                    fax: 
+44-(0)1865-310447

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20100401/08b25e06/attachment.htm>