The only technical problem is that we cannot put it into JSON-LD files, simply because there is no possibility to add comments to JSON :-(
I guess what this means is that we should add a triple to the RDF namespace documents. A simple: <URI_OF_NAMESPACE> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/license> <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document> should suffice. Ivan > On 18 Mar 2016, at 20:21, Ivan Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we should, yes. > > Ivan > > --- > Ivan Herman > Tel:+31 641044153 > http://www.ivan-herman.net > > (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > > > >> On 18 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Sandro Hawke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The conclusion from the other thread, with Eric, is clearly the Software >> license. Should we go edit the the ontologies to say this? >> >> -- Sandro >> >>> On 03/18/2016 11:29 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>> Hi, in Apache Taverna we try to use PROV, and part of that is to embed >>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.ttl >>> in our source code to avoid external dependencies. >>> >>> As we discuss in >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927 >>> .. now we are not sure if we can do this, as it is unclear what is the >>> license of the PROV ontologies and schemas. >>> >>> They do not have any <!-- style --> headers, and there is no >>> dcterms:license annotatoin. >>> >>> However >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ >>> and >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ >>> >>> says: >>> >>>> Copyright © 2011-2013 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang), All Rights >>>> Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. >>> The Document Use Rules >>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license >>> are controversial for Apache source code as it forbids modifications: >>> >>>> No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is >>>> granted pursuant to this license, except as follows: To facilitate >>>> implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, >>>> anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this >>>> document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and >>>> in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the >>>> notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this >>>> document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. >>> ..and hence we can't include them in source code >>> repositories/releases, as it would be incompatible with the Apache >>> License. >>> >>> (including in binaries are OK, but then we have to fetch them during >>> build - which risks hitting the infamous w3.org schema 'tar pit') >>> >>> >>> However the Document Use rules also says: >>> >>>> In addition, "Code Components" —Web IDL in sections clearly marked as Web >>>> IDL; and W3C-defined markup (HTML, CSS, etc.) and computer programming >>>> language code clearly marked as code examples— are licensed under the W3C >>>> Software License. >>> ( The W3C Software License is permissive and would be OK to include in >>> source code. >>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document ) >>> >>> >>> This list does not include schemas, ontologies or JSON-LD contextx - >>> so it is unclear if these count as "Code Components" or as >>> "Documents". Do we then have to assume that if they don't have a >>> header or license annotation, then they are under the Documentation >>> License? >>> >>> >>> BTW - here's an example of a schema with the software licence header, >>> which means we can include it in source code: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd >>> >>> (once you get it out of the w3.org tar pit) >>> >>> <!-- Schema for XML Signatures >>> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig# >>> $Revision: 1.1 $ on $Date: 2002/02/08 20:32:26 $ by $Author: reagle $ >>> >>> Copyright 2001 The Internet Society and W3C (Massachusetts Institute >>> of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en >>> Automatique, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. >>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ >>> >>> This document is governed by the W3C Software License [1] as described >>> in the FAQ [2]. >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720 >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620.html#DTD >>> --> >>> >>> >>> Would it be possible for other schemas and ontologies, particularly >>> under /ns/ to get a similar clarifying license header? Or at least >>> this to be a requirement for any future specifications? >>> >>> >>> Another question is what counts as a "modification" - is this any >>> derived work? E.g. changing a Turtle file to JSON-LD? Or generating >>> Java class files with JAXB from an XSD? >>> >>> >>> We're considering a legal workaround by packaging various w3c schemas >>> as Maven artifacts, from Github distributed to Maven Central as JAR >>> "binaries" - but it is even unclear if this would count as a >>> "modification". >>> >>> (We have a similar issue with OASIS schemas) >>> >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
