On 11/02/2015 00:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
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.
Tracing ownership across magical thought transference (err, talking to each other ;-)) is a non-starter. Do Not Go There. Provided the creator was an employee of the University of Manchester *at the time* that the workflow was created, and we use a version that dates from then, the University can unilaterally change the license (e.g., by making it available under another license). This is part of the general conditions in the terms of employment.
In other words, if Katy was being paid by us at the time the workflow was made, we can make the version of it contributed entirely safe. :-)
It's the copies of various specifications that are the problem. Donal.
