Re: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16
James Lawson wrote: We (Catherine, Poul and I) were thinking that there are basically three places where you'd want to display / store this information within PMR2: in the metadata itself (thereby allowing it to be rendered by software, indexed and searched etc.), on the exposure somewhere (perhaps a rendering of the metadata,) and in the proposed blanket, site-wide 'terms of use' page. As Catherine has mentioned in the relevant tracker item (don't have the number on hand,) one of the issues which we must now decide on is whether to require that all models in the repository abide by CC attrib 3 or whether users can specify special cases. We should be open and therefore allow people to go for whatever license they want. However, they should be made aware that by doing so, they take the risk of their model not being used, etc. This being said, some authors might still prefer that outcome to not having their model on the CellML repository? Alan ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16
alan.ga...@dpag.ox.ac.uk wrote: James Lawson wrote: We (Catherine, Poul and I) were thinking that there are basically three places where you'd want to display / store this information within PMR2: in the metadata itself (thereby allowing it to be rendered by software, indexed and searched etc.), on the exposure somewhere (perhaps a rendering of the metadata,) and in the proposed blanket, site-wide 'terms of use' page. As Catherine has mentioned in the relevant tracker item (don't have the number on hand,) one of the issues which we must now decide on is whether to require that all models in the repository abide by CC attrib 3 or whether users can specify special cases. We should be open and therefore allow people to go for whatever license they want. However, they should be made aware that by doing so, they take the risk of their model not being used, etc. This being said, some authors might still prefer that outcome to not having their model on the CellML repository? Hi Alan, Allowing people the ability to choose other licenses is something that I think can go into later releases of the repository; however, until then, the simplest thing to do is just to require that people need to license the model under the Creative Commons Attribution License. If we do allow other licenses, we do need to make sure that the license allows us to distribute the model to everyone who asks for it through the model repository - so a manual process of review of any new licenses would probably be required (but we could let users choose from several licenses we had pre-approved). I don't think that requiring people to license their contributions under a particular license is contrary to the principle of being open - the copyright holder of the model can freely license it under the terms and submit the model, and this ensures that everyone can download and adapt models from the repository - which is more open than it would be if some parts of the repository were more restricted. Best wishes, Andrew Alan ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16
Andrew Miller wrote: alan.ga...@dpag.ox.ac.uk wrote: We should be open and therefore allow people to go for whatever license they want. However, they should be made aware that by doing so, they take the risk of their model not being used, etc. This being said, some authors might still prefer that outcome to not having their model on the CellML repository? Allowing people the ability to choose other licenses is something that I think can go into later releases of the repository; however, until then, the simplest thing to do is just to require that people need to license the model under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Indeed, but what if they don't want or can't (whatever the reason)? Does it mean that the model can't be made available on PMR2? Hopefully not. Alan ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16
From: cellml-discussion-boun...@cellml.org [mailto:cellml-discussion- boun...@cellml.org] On Behalf Of Dougal Cowan Sent: 17 December 2009 01:55 To: cellml-discussion@cellml.org Subject: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16 I have put the minutes from this week's meeting up at: http://www.cellml.org/community/meeting/minutes/2009/12.16 Just a quick comment about the minutes: - Randall said we will need a good way to indicate which license applies to each model - possibly in metadata. -- Metadata seems like an obvious place indeed. One thing to keep in mind (and I am sure you guys did, but I didn't see any mention of it) is that the license under which a particular model comes should be very obvious to anyone using PMR2. In other words, someone shouldn't have to, say, download a model and then check its metadata so that he knows about its license. Alan ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16
We (Catherine, Poul and I) were thinking that there are basically three places where you'd want to display / store this information within PMR2: in the metadata itself (thereby allowing it to be rendered by software, indexed and searched etc.), on the exposure somewhere (perhaps a rendering of the metadata,) and in the proposed blanket, site-wide 'terms of use' page. As Catherine has mentioned in the relevant tracker item (don't have the number on hand,) one of the issues which we must now decide on is whether to require that all models in the repository abide by CC attrib 3 or whether users can specify special cases. Cheers, James On 18/12/2009, at 1:25 AM, Alan Garny wrote: From: cellml-discussion-boun...@cellml.org [mailto:cellml-discussion- boun...@cellml.org] On Behalf Of Dougal Cowan Sent: 17 December 2009 01:55 To: cellml-discussion@cellml.org Subject: [cellml-discussion] ABI CellML meeting minutes 2009-12-16 I have put the minutes from this week's meeting up at: http://www.cellml.org/community/meeting/minutes/2009/12.16 Just a quick comment about the minutes: - Randall said we will need a good way to indicate which license applies to each model - possibly in metadata. -- Metadata seems like an obvious place indeed. One thing to keep in mind (and I am sure you guys did, but I didn't see any mention of it) is that the license under which a particular model comes should be very obvious to anyone using PMR2. In other words, someone shouldn't have to, say, download a model and then check its metadata so that he knows about its license. Alan ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
