Re: [jats-list] Todays G+ discussions

["Dave Pawson dave.pawson@xxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 October 2014 22:01, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
maloneyc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Dave, our current recommendations for license tagging are here,
>
> https://github.com/JATS4R/elements/wiki/Permissions.  They are not
>
> bofficialb yet, but still subject to change.  We had considerable
>
> discussion about which licenses should apply.  They need to be identified
>
> by canonical, persistent, published URIs, and in our recommendations, we
>
> have a sentence that reads, "Currently, the only license URIs that meet
>
> these requirements are those published by Creative Commons.b  This might
>
> be wrong; I know that there are groups that are doing for data and code
>
> what CC is doing for literature, (e.g. opendatacommons.org, and GNU,
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html).
>


Rightly or wrongly I'm assuming that you require some form of open
copyright to enable re-use. The copyright page seems a little
confusing, merging human readable and optional machine readable, which
may conflict?

I also assume that the common (global) copyleft licenses all have a
URL (and a version - not mentioned).
  I'm suggesting that since copyright is publisher based, you list the
urls of the common ones for the published to select from and leave it
at that? If a publisher wants special treatment then it might suggest
that they do not favour re-use? Or is that too harsh?
   Do the repo's have time/legal budgets to argue each document?
regards





--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk