Thank you all for the useful suggestions and links. I like the idea of using a CC0 license. That's likely what I will go for.
Best, davide On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:42 AM Tim Triche, Jr. <tim.tri...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
