Also keep in mind US copyright rules for data are different from European. We ran into this recently when wanting to publish european data from a web database. On Mar 4, 2016 10:05 AM, "Tim Triche, Jr." <tim.tri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Data (facts) are not copyright worthy, but databases (collections of > facts) can be. See Feist v Rural for precedent; in short, there must be an > inobvious and creative aspect to the database for it to be elevated to > copyrightable status. I doubt that a collection of datasets would clear > this bar, but it's still worth noting. > > --t > > > On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Robert M. Flight <rfligh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I am pretty sure in general "data" is not copyrightable per se ( > > http://www.lib.umich.edu/copyright/facts-and-data), so while I might > > contact the original authors as a courtesy, if the data has been released > > into any public database, then you should be free to do with it as you > > please. Providing the original accession numbers for the data and > relevant > > citations (if they exist) so that it is easy for you and others to be > given > > credit if the data is used would be a good thing to do. > > > > Also, I would personally go with the CC0 (waive of copyright, see > > https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0) for a data package, as the > data > > is already publicly available, you have just packaged it together into a > > useful set. > > > > My 2 cents. > > > > -Robert > > > > Robert M Flight, PhD > > Bioinformatics Research Associate > > Resource Center for Stable Isotope Resolved Metabolomics > > Manager, Systems Biology and Omics Integration Journal Club > > Markey Cancer Center > > CC434 Roach Building > > University of Kentucky > > Lexington, KY > > > > Twitter: @rmflight > > Web: rmflight.github.io > > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8141-7788 > > EM rfligh...@gmail.com > > PH 502-509-1827 > > > > To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more > > than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to > say > > what the experiment died of. - Ronald Fisher > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:52 AM Kasper Daniel Hansen < > > kasperdanielhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> For data packages, which does not contain any code, it seems weird to > use a > >> software license such as GPL or GPL-2. It seems better to use something > >> like Artistic-2.0 or one of the CC licenses. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM, davide risso <risso.dav...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Hervé and Sean, > >>> > >>> thanks for your help. It will indeed be interesting to hear how other > >>> people chose the license, especially for those package that > redistribute > >> a > >>> dataset not from their lab. > >>> > >>> I do have an experimental data package in Bioc, zebrafishRNASeq, but > it's > >>> an experiment from a collaborator and at the time I didn't pay much > >>> attention on which license to use. > >>> In this case, I'd like to redistribute data from different labs. I > guess > >> I > >>> will contact the original authors at least as a courtesy. > >>> But I'm still keen to hear opinions on which license(s) is appropriate > >> for > >>> experimental data sharing. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> davide > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:50 PM Hervé Pagès <hpa...@fredhutch.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Davide, > >>>> > >>>>> On 03/01/2016 02:25 PM, davide risso wrote: > >>>>> Dear Bioc developers, > >>>>> > >>>>> I recently downloaded three publicly available single-cell RNA-seq > >>>> datasets > >>>>> from the NCBI GEO/SRA repository and created an R package with some > >>>>> gene-level summaries (read counts and FPKMs). > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm currently using the package locally for my own tests, but I'm > >>>> thinking > >>>>> that this may be a useful resource for the community and thinking of > >>>>> sharing it on github and eventually submit it to Bioconductor. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was not involved in any way with the original studies, and I'm > >>>> wondering > >>>>> what is the best practice in terms of license / data sharing. Since > >>> there > >>>>> are many experimental data packages in Bioconductor, I'm guessing > >> that > >>>> I'm > >>>>> not the first person wondering about this. > >>>>> > >>>>>> From the NCBI website, I read (quote from > >>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/home/about/policies.shtml): > >>>>> Databases of molecular data on the NCBI Web site include such > >> examples > >>> as > >>>>> nucleotide sequences (GenBank), protein sequences, macromolecular > >>>>> structures, molecular variation, gene expression, and mapping data. > >>> They > >>>>> are designed to provide and encourage access within the scientific > >>>>> community to sources of current and comprehensive information. > >>> Therefore, > >>>>> NCBI itself places no restrictions on the use or distribution of the > >>> data > >>>>> contained therein. Nor do we accept data when the submitter has > >>> requested > >>>>> restrictions on reuse or redistribution. However, some submitters of > >>> the > >>>>> original data (or the country of origin of such data) may claim > >> patent, > >>>>> copyright, or other intellectual property rights in all or a portion > >> of > >>>> the > >>>>> data (that has been submitted). NCBI is not in a position to assess > >> the > >>>>> validity of such claims and since there is no transfer of rights from > >>>>> submitters to NCBI, NCBI has no rights to transfer to a third party. > >>>>> Therefore, NCBI cannot provide comment or unrestricted permission > >>>>> concerning the use, copying, or distribution of the information > >>> contained > >>>>> in the molecular databases. > >>>>> > >>>>> Should I contact the original authors for permission? Or is the fact > >>> that > >>>>> the data were publicly shared enough to grant me permission to > >>>> redistribute? > >>>>> In that case, is there a standard license that I should use? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for any feedback / thought! > >>>> > >>>> I don't have much to offer. AFAIK we don't really have guidelines or > >>>> recommendations for what license to use for experimental data > packages, > >>>> except for the usual "make sure you use an appropriate license" > advice. > >>>> So far it has really been up to each author/maintainer to make sure > >>>> they pick up a license that is compatible with the original > >>>> license/copyright/patent of the original data they are packaging > >>>> and with its redistribution thru the Bioconductor channel. > >>>> > >>>> FWIW here is a summary of the licenses used by the 276 experimental > >>>> data packages currently in BioC devel: > >>>> > >>>> License Nb of packages > >>>> ------------ -------------- > >>>> GPL 135 > >>>> Artistic-2.0 96 > >>>> LGPL 41 > >>>> other 4 > >>>> > >>>> Would be interesting to hear from other developers about this. For > >>>> example, how people choose between GPL vs Artistic-2.0? Is one > >>>> license typically more appropriate for packaging and redistributing > >>>> data that is already publicly available? > >>>> > >>>> H. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> davide > >>>>> > >>>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Hervé Pagès > >>>> > >>>> Program in Computational Biology > >>>> Division of Public Health Sciences > >>>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > >>>> 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > >>>> P.O. Box 19024 > >>>> Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > >>>> > >>>> E-mail: hpa...@fredhutch.org > >>>> Phone: (206) 667-5791 > >>>> Fax: (206) 667-1319 > >>>> > >>> > >>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >>> > >> > >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > _______________________________________________ > Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
