I was going to mention droit d'auteur under EU common law, but somehow that seemed more in Hervé's wheelhouse ;-).
--t > On Mar 4, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Lyle Burgoon <burgoon.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
