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) >> > >
