[open-science] Fwd: LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request signatories needed

[Amrapali J Zaveri]

Hi,

I am a PhD student at the University of Leipzig working with the AKSW group
[1] and as part of my project [2], we converted the WHO-GHO dataset to RDF.

To answer the question about the licensing/copyright issue, according to
WHO, if extracts from WHO website of publication are used for research,
private study or in a noncommercial document with limited circulation (such
as an academic thesis or dissertation), then it is allowed to do so without
seeking permission [3]. WHO encourages the use of its information materials
for information purposes i.e. when the purpose of the use is to share
objective information, whether free of charge or for sale. Only if the
material is to be used for commercial purposes, it requires a license.
However it does have a copyright notice: Copyright World Health Organization
(WHO), 2011. All Rights Reserved [4], so maybe this copyright could be
added.

Also, the dataset is available at this SPARQL endpoint:
http://db0.aksw.org:8895/sparql and can be downloaded from here:
http://aksw.org/Projects/Stats2RDF#h13390-5 .

Hope that is sufficient information regarding the open-ness of the dataset.
Let me know if any other information is required and suggestions are welcome
:)

That leaves three datasets where we have not been able to find a clear
licensing/copyright/waiver statement, and for these three letters are
now written, see Jenny's email, to inquire under what conditions those
data sets can be redistributed, which the LODD wg is already doing.
This involves DailyMed, RXNorm, and the WHO-GHO data sets. Input from
those who composed is helpful here. One thing that we want to get
clear is if people can pull the data from the SPARQL end point,
use/modify it, and even redistribute it.


Thank you.
Regards,
Amrapali J Zaveri

[1] http://aksw.org/About
[2] http://aksw.org/Projects/ReDDObservatory
[3] http://www.who.int/about/licensing/extracts/en/index.html
[4] http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/index.html


On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Egon Willighagen <
egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Matthias Samwald <samwald at gmx.at> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if clear-cut rules for LODD have been defined. However, many
> > people interested/involved in LODD come from commercially oriented
> companies
> > (mostly pharmaceutical companies). Therefore it certainly IS a reason for
> > concern if 5 out of 12 datasets disallow commercial use without
> permission.
>
> Agreed. It may also be relevant to all those research institutes that
> also have commercial activities, many of them who have mixed funding
> from national and EU projects, but also sell consultancy, etc.
>
> > It would certainly be helpful to convince these data providers of
> removing
> > the NC clause, but it seems unlikely.
>
> Indeed. This is why that latter was supposed to be informative, rather
> than requesting dropping that clause. At this moment, I am not aware
> that anyone has challenged a company for using data with a NC clause,
> but this is bound to happen.
>
> > Looking at the list of datasets with
> > NC clauses (including Drugbank, LinkedCT, major parts of SIDER, STITCH),
> I
> > get the feeling that the providers did not choose to include NC clauses
> on a
> > whim.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I guess the best we can realistically do for these datasets is to
> > improve the visibility of these licensing restrictions for people that
> want
> > to use them.
>
> Yes, and that's an actual LODD activity we discussed about half a year
> ago, and which was the first half of the work done in the hack
> session: just getting clear what the actual terms of use are :) For
> three they are unclear, and we will seek clarification for those.
> That's the three letters being referred to in Jenny's email.
>
> Egon
>
>
> --
> Dr E.L. Willighagen
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Institutet för miljömedicin
> Karolinska Institutet
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20110309/5a2538d3/attachment-0001.html>