The Frictionless Data specification does not require a
Open data needs a license.
I’m wondering why the
license property isn’t required at either the package or resource levels?
How would it be viewed if the app I’m making to create data packages required a license in datapackage.json?
Technically open data doesn’t always need a licence, as some open data is unencumbered by intellectual property rights (and therefore has no owner with legal standing to issue a licence).
So my question is now, should the Frictionless Data specification explicitly support identifying that:
- the work is licensed under an open licence
- copyright has been waived
- copyright has expired
- the work is public domain?
Providing clarity on the licence, waiver, or other mechanisms that allow reuse would make a data package more useful.
I have made research of OGD licensing, maybe it could be useful: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281777766_Open_Government_Data_Licensing_Framework
@Stephen among other answers:
- Data Packages are designed for all types of data not just open data
- Someone may want to create a package they don’t yet know the license status of
General point: the
license field is indicative not binding (as stated in the spec) – though I guess in some cases the license field may be used as the explicit statement of license …
So a user interface for collecting the licence should allow any of:
name (an Open Definition license ID) from which
title could be derived.
path and optionally a
title to a licence that is not assessed as an Open Definition conformant license. As the
path can be a
url-or-path the license could be a file within the data package.
Perhaps it would be useful in the specification to offer guidance on the use of licenses, e.g.:
- prefer an open license
- If not an open license, prefer the license to be at a URL
- If the licence is not at a URL but included in the data package, prefer .txt or .md file formats over other file formats (.doc or .pdf)
- If the license status is unknown, encourage a comment in the
- If there is no copyright in the data or copyright has expired, encourage:
- If copyright has been waived, encourage:
- the use of CC0 or,
- provide a URL to another waiver. or
- include the waiver in the Data Package
- Where copyright in the data is held by multiple parties, explain this in the
- Include other copyright and attribution information in the
README.md file, e.g.:
- preferred attribution text or attribution URL
- copyright notice, year
I wonder if this is worth writing up as a Frictionless Data Pattern?
Edit: I’ve drafted a guide at Add links to PR by sapetti9 · Pull Request #157 · frictionlessdata/website · GitHub
A post was split to a new topic: Open Data Business Models