First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Terms of use for CellML models and associated content hosted on models.cellml.org


Chronological Thread 
  • From: hans.ekkehard.plesser at umb.no (Dr. Hans Ekkehard Plesser)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Terms of use for CellML models and associated content hosted on models.cellml.org
  • Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:54:05 +0100

Hi!

You may want to look at work in licensing by Victoria Stodden, see

http://www.stanford.edu/~vcs/

Best,
Hans

Allyson Lister wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is an interesting point - thanks for bringing it to the community,
> Catherine!
>
> Though I am not a developer of CellML models, but rather a user of them
> (in the bioinformatics, data integration sense), I have a few points to
> make that might help this discussion. I have spent a lot of time
> thinking about licensing with respect to ontologies, which are similar
> beasts in terms of licensing, IMHO.
>
> Firstly: the distinction between /attribution/ and /citation/. At the
> risk of tooting my own horn, me and a colleague Frank Gibson have
> written about this in the context of the life sciences here:
> http://themindwobbles.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/attribution-vs-citation-do-you-know-the-difference/
> . Basically, what I would like people to get from this point is that you
> need to carefully define what the goal is that you want to achieve with
> the terms of model distribution.
>
> Secondly: licensing (which guarantees attribution, but not necessarily
> citation). The most common requirement mentioned in the links below is
> attribution. Some have suggested GPL, others the CC-BY license. I would
> like to suggest that you do NOT use GPL. Although the name "viral" may
> be misleading, it is true that if a 3rd party wants to use your
> GPL-licensed models, that if you create a software program that /is a
> derived work of another software program, then that combined work must
> be distributed under these terms/. This means that you are restricting
> everyone down the line to using GPL. I would suggest a variant of the
> Creative Commons license, such as CC-BY. However, Creative Commons is
> explictly NOT designed for software. Here, you run into the same problem
> I had with figuring out a license for ontologies: are ontologies - and
> models - software or documents? It is my impression (and one that seems
> to be backed up by the Science Commons folks) that these are indeed
> documents, and would be suitable for CC. CC allows you to choose a
> license that isn't defined by any particular country. CC-BY forces
> attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) while CC-BY-SA
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) enforces attribution
> and for people to use similar, compatible (but not identical) licensing.
> (btw, it seems the BioModels terms of use are here, and might be worth a
> read: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/biomodels-main/termsofuse)
>
> Thirdly: attribution stacking. While it is a good idea (it's what I do)
> to require attribution in your license, because CellML models may be
> incorporated one into another into another into another etc, you may get
> the situation very quickly where it becomes rather unwieldy to ensure
> everything has been attributed properly. Conversely, if each model gets
> the attribution right each time, it may not be such a high wall to climb
> after all. The Science Commons people have something to say about this
> in general:
> http://themindwobbles.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/science-commons-provide-a-list-of-considerations-for-researchers-looking-to-license-their-ontology/
> . The link I provide here is about ontologies, but the broad points
> remain important.
>
> Finally, do you want links to the other model URIs, or to the DOIs of
> the papers they're described in? I'm guessing the former, as perhaps the
> latter will be included in the model's metadata anyway? However, model
> authors may be more keen, in terms of # of citations being an important
> metric, to see a DOI put in instead. Not sure, would have to ask the
> modellers themselves.
>
> Hope this helps, and sorry for the length - I didn't intend it to be so
> long when I started!
>
> :) allyson
>
> 2009/12/1 Catherine Lloyd <c.lloyd at auckland.ac.nz
> <mailto:c.lloyd at auckland.ac.nz>>
>
> Dear All
>
> We are looking towards using the MIRIAM Standard for the basic set
> of CellML model curation flags. In order to do this we need to
> consider how we are going to address the following point:
>
> "Is the model linked to a precise statement about the terms of
> distribution?"
>
> This issue has been raised at an Auckland CellML team meeting:
>
> http://www.cellml.org/community/meeting/minutes/2009/11.25
>
> And it has also been discussed (briefly) on the Physiome tracker:
>
> https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2056
>
> Before we come up with a definite solution to this problem we would
> like to open up the discussion further and invite the community to
> add any comments they might have to this tracker item.
>
> Thank you in advance for your thoughts and ideas!
>
> Best wishes
> Catherine
>
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org <mailto:cellml-discussion at cellml.org>
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>
>
>
>
> --
> Allyson Lister
> http://themindwobbles.wordpress.com
>
> CISBAN, http://www.cisban.ac.uk
> Newcastle University
>

--
Dr. Hans Ekkehard Plesser
Associate Professor

Dept. of Mathematical Sciences and Technology
Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Phone +47 6496 5467
Fax +47 6496 5401
Email hans.ekkehard.plesser at umb.no
Home http://arken.umb.no/~plesser


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page