Licensing ontologies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licensing ontologies

Michael DeBellis-2
I'm planning to submit an ontology I developed to the Vocabulary Carnival at Semantics 2018 in Vienna: https://2018.semantics.cc/vocabulary-carnival

One of the requirements they list is that the ontology is: "hosted on the Web at a persistent URI and with an appropriate licence specification."

I want my ontology to be used as openly and freely as possible  but I'm wondering is it still a good idea to include some open source boilerplate text in the ontology description? If so does anyone have a pointer to a license statement that is good to re-use? 

As I looked at some web info on this one thing they said is to use the license that is accepted in your community and I'm wondering if there are any licenses that are common for reusable semantic web ontologies? Also, I'm not sure if I should allow people to re-use it in closed for profit systems, I think the kind of license that allows everything except that is what Gnu uses and is called copyleft(?) Any advise or pointers would be greatly appreciated. 

Michael

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing ontologies

samsontu
Hi,

Ontology is a kind of content. One of the Creative Commons licenses [1] should be appropriate. The Gene Ontology, for example, uses  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License [2]. OBO Foundry ontologies are also encouraged to use Creative Common licenses [3].

With best regards,
Samson


On Aug 24, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm planning to submit an ontology I developed to the Vocabulary Carnival at Semantics 2018 in Vienna: https://2018.semantics.cc/vocabulary-carnival

One of the requirements they list is that the ontology is: "hosted on the Web at a persistent URI and with an appropriate licence specification."

I want my ontology to be used as openly and freely as possible  but I'm wondering is it still a good idea to include some open source boilerplate text in the ontology description? If so does anyone have a pointer to a license statement that is good to re-use? 

As I looked at some web info on this one thing they said is to use the license that is accepted in your community and I'm wondering if there are any licenses that are common for reusable semantic web ontologies? Also, I'm not sure if I should allow people to re-use it in closed for profit systems, I think the kind of license that allows everything except that is what Gnu uses and is called copyleft(?) Any advise or pointers would be greatly appreciated. 

Michael
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing ontologies

Michael DeBellis-2
Excellent. Thanks Samson. 

Michael

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 2:31 PM Samson Tu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Ontology is a kind of content. One of the Creative Commons licenses [1] should be appropriate. The Gene Ontology, for example, uses  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License [2]. OBO Foundry ontologies are also encouraged to use Creative Common licenses [3].

With best regards,
Samson


On Aug 24, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm planning to submit an ontology I developed to the Vocabulary Carnival at Semantics 2018 in Vienna: https://2018.semantics.cc/vocabulary-carnival

One of the requirements they list is that the ontology is: "hosted on the Web at a persistent URI and with an appropriate licence specification."

I want my ontology to be used as openly and freely as possible  but I'm wondering is it still a good idea to include some open source boilerplate text in the ontology description? If so does anyone have a pointer to a license statement that is good to re-use? 

As I looked at some web info on this one thing they said is to use the license that is accepted in your community and I'm wondering if there are any licenses that are common for reusable semantic web ontologies? Also, I'm not sure if I should allow people to re-use it in closed for profit systems, I think the kind of license that allows everything except that is what Gnu uses and is called copyleft(?) Any advise or pointers would be greatly appreciated. 

Michael
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user