Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi all,

@David. I would not sure that those fallback would work because the
repository is probably overwriting the license of the model.
I.e. you agree to the repository license and no matter what you write in
the model does not matter.
As least that is how that works in biomodels. They force a CC0 license on
every model uploaded even if I explicitly state in the meta-data the model
is CC-BY.
So you will need in addition the information of the repository/source
license which applies (especially if the license is more open as in the
case of biomodels).

Best Matthias


On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:21 PM David Nickerson
<david.nickerson AT gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Tomas,
>
> Just to add that this separation of the license from the repository
> content is an issue that really came to the fore recently in working
> through some FAIR indicators for modelling (see
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/XO_7C1WLoBT3AOkvILUSn3?domain=fair-ca-indicators.github.io).
> As Tommy points out, the license
> information is available on the website/repository (if you know where to
> look) but once you download a model from the repository, that knowledge
> does not persist.
>
> We originally envisioned modellers capturing the license information in
> the model metadata and had the catch-all fallback for PMR "to be safe". In
> practice, that approach hasn't worked out and the default fallback has
> become the standard practice. We have at various times talked about
> harmonizing licensing information across the COMBINE standards as part of
> the OMEX Metadata specification (
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/ijEaC2xMp1U126RnI1lmxH?domain=identifiers.org),
> but
> without actually including it in the spec yet. Again, something that has
> been pushed as we look to evaluate FAIR-ness of models and
> models-in-repositories.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 00:30, Tommy Yu
> <tommy.yu AT auckland.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tomas,
>>
>> Generally speaking, the models hosted on the Physiome Model Repository
>> are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License <
>> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/fKaGC3QNqKIqgxGLh2Wp_n?domain=creativecommons.org>.
>> For the particular
>> workspace that you've linked, it has an exposure (navigable via the `Latest
>> Exposure` button in that page) and it leads to the top level exposure
>> container, and from there there is a link to the exposure view of the
>> workspace, where the license for the work is visible. As for why this
>> license was picked (instead of the specific GNU ones) was to allow maximum
>> reach with attribution, but the exact reasoning was probably recorded in
>> discussions many, many years ago.
>>
>> The workspace view being shown is a general file listing and are managed
>> by collaborator(s) that may be working on the model, though it is up to
>> them to add whatever files they deem necessary (including the license file)
>> to this workspace that underlies the exposure presentation layer for the
>> repository itself.
>>
>> If you'd like to publish a modified version of the model to the
>> repository, please create an account, create a fork of that workspace, and
>> push your changes to that fork to get the changes into your fork as a start
>> using Git. The full details of this whole process may be found in the
>> documentation, which is linked via the top tool bar.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tommy.
>>
>> On 24/10/23 23:40, Tomas Stary wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I would like to publish a modified version of a model from the CellML
>> > repository [1].
>> >
>> > I wanted to make sure, that I have the necessary permission to do that
>> > and find out what are the conditions. However, the licensing information
>> > of the published files is missing, which could mean that all the
>> > copyrights may be reserved by the copyright holders [2],[3].
>> >
>> > I wonder if the general licensing information is specified in any other
>> > place I might have failed to find?
>> >
>> > I have also noticed that this problem is not specific for the model [1],
>> > but might be relevant to other CellML repositories as well. Would it be
>> > possible for you to include the licensing information into the
>> > repositories, perhaps in the form of LICENSE file with the terms?
>> >
>> > I believe that some kind of copyleft license [4] would work best to keep
>> > the project as open as possible.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Tomas
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/fJc9C4QOrYIg26mLIWdP5t?domain=models.physiomeproject.org
>> >
>> > [2]
>> > https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/LT3dC5QPv1IEPRxqTxb1VT?domain=gnu.org
>> >
>> > [3]
>> > https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/MQSKC6XQwzSz6M1QcLlLQa?domain=choosealicense.com
>> >
>> > [4]
>> > https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/USZMC71RxWHlXyQ3F0fXK4?domain=gnu.org
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
>> > Institute of Biomedical Engineering
>> >
>> > Tomas Stary, PhD
>> > Research Software Engineer
>> >
>> > Fritz-Haber-Weg 1 (Building 30.33, Room 507)
>> > 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
>> >
>> > Tel: +49 721 608-41578
>> >
>> > E-Mail:
>> > tomas.stary AT kit.edu
>> > Web:
>> > https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Im2ZC81VyBH15QznIR06tC?domain=ibt.kit.edu
>> >
>> > <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Im2ZC81VyBH15QznIR06tC?domain=ibt.kit.edu>
>>
>>

---

• [cellml-discussion] copyrights and licensing issues, Tomas Stary, 10/24/2023
  • Re: [cellml-discussion] copyrights and licensing issues, Tommy Yu, 10/25/2023
    • Re: [cellml-discussion] copyrights and licensing issues, David Nickerson, 10/25/2023
      • Re: [cellml-discussion] copyrights and licensing issues, Matthias König, 10/25/2023
        • Re: [cellml-discussion] copyrights and licensing issues, David Nickerson, 10/25/2023

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.