-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Licensing #1
Comments
We may want to think about what license makes sense for data objects, and associated documentation. GPL-3 may be fine, but we certainly want to specify that when using a data set, attribution should be given to the data set author. (GPL is a great license for code, but not always for other kinds of things, where e.g. fidelity of attribution or the like is important. Also, data itself is sometimes non-copyrightable, though associated material may be.) Perhaps worth looking to see what others have been doing in this space.... |
Good point. In similar packages I see:
I think all the data-object-related man pages in Statnet packages have proper references. We may add a sentence that the original sources need to be cited rather than the package itself. What do you think? |
I think this is where we need to be careful with the Add Health public datasets. We are not in a position to decide the license for those. |
WRT licenses and citations I have added the following template to every man page:
Some of the datasets have more details about the sources and publications than that. |
I have added all Statnet core group as authors. Please let me know if I should add somebody else.
The package is on GPL-3 at this moment. Some of the datasets explicitly mention CC licenses. I think this needs to be unified. I suspect CRAN will not like one license in |
I looked at pure data packages I have installed on my machine, this is how they are licensed:
So quite a variability.
I browsed through the documentation of the datasets contained in other packages and have not encounter a single instance of a dataset licensed differently than the package itself. GPL seems rather strange for datasets but is often used (even R itself and pacakge
Thoughts? |
Hadley Wickham recomends CC licenses for data packages: https://r-pkgs.org/license.html?q=licens#license-data . GPL indeed seems too code-specific. |
I have addressed this issue with the following:
Is that an acceptable solution @statnet/dev ? |
I'm not sure if you get notifications so mentioning individually @martinamorris @CarterButts @handcock @krivit @sgoodreau @drh20drh20 . |
Do we want NC and ND terms in this license? NC means, AFAIK, that someone can't use this dataset to teach a workshop or in an example in a book, and ND means that they can't redistribute a version modified for their purposes or in a different format. Am I missing something? |
I've put a wrong link in the man pages, should be https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ so only BY - attribution but no additional restrictions. It is correct in DESCRIPTION and LICENSE. Thanks @krivit for noticing that. |
Unless there's a good reason to restrict, it seems like these datasets should just require attribution. And while we've made the data accessible, which should be noted by attribution, we should encourage people to cite the original sources (which should be included as metadata in the dataset package). |
Per 6272770 URL is fixed to CC BY now. |
LICENSE
should we use it or standard GPL-3 is enough?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: