I'll have a look at it. Creative commons is the most used license for vocabularies to my knowledge, that is why I think we should look anyway at dealing with CC things in Stanbol.
However, I also started a thread on the public-lod to see what's the practice for expressing license info within the ontology. This is more related to implementation, but I believe we may want to follow some already established practice. I'll be offline this afternoon, will be back on this tomorrow. Val On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Alessandro Adamou <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ...as per STANBOL-277 we have an issue about licensing ontologies in local >> resources. >> >> Who can confirm whether Creative Commons is Apache-compliant?... > > Depends on the exact flavor, see > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html - if the licenses of your > stuff fit into what's mentioned there we'll be fine. Might need an > addition to our NOTICES files if attribution is required. > > -Bertrand
