No need to modify old uploads on myExperiment, as copyright holders, University of Manchester is allowed to distribute things several times under many licenses. Non-Manchester folks would however not have that freedom.
(We should probably check that Apache License 2.0 is selectable on myExperiment though, so we can share the other way) Being owned by you on myExperiment does not automatically mean you (e.g. Univ of Manchester) is the sole copyright holder though - a complex enough workflows could be argued to be intellectual property just like code - if you rebuild a workflow in a 1:1 match then it's not much different from say printing out the Windows source code and and typing in again - Microsoft would still be the copyright holder. (However back in the days they used to print the source code of PGP as a book, send it to Germany, OCR and type it back in, compile, and get the "International PGP" edition to put on European FTP servers - thus bypassing US export restrictions on cryptography software.) On 10 February 2015 at 19:19, Alan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10-Feb-15 18:51, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> >> Right, many of those excludes must go. >> >> We still need distribution rights for the test workflows etc as they go >> into the source distribution. I would try to keep those to be just >> Manchester ones to avoid growing the NOTICE file with creative commons >> attributions. > > > Many of them are on myExperiment with Creative Commons License - will that > create any problem? If so, we can change the license on myE. Most of them > are owned by me. There are a few that were created by Dr Katy Wolstencroft > but she will be OK with changing the license. > > Alan > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
