Re: [jats-list] Todays G+ discussions

Subject: Re: [jats-list] Todays G+ discussions
From: "Dave Pawson dave.pawson@xxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:24:08 -0000
On 22 October 2014 22:01, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
maloneyc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Dave, our current recommendations for license tagging are here,
>  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., and GNU,

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?

Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.

Current Thread