License Keyword

[ax3l]

Add a new data license keyword to openPMD /.

This can be used to express open access (creative commons) licenses et al. and avoids decoupling this important information from the medium the data is stored in.

Short-hand identifiers are defined in SPDX as well:
https://spdx.org/licenses/

And we should keep a default/free text option for whatever non-free stuff people come up with.

Proposed / keyword (required):

• license
  • type: (string)
  • description: the data license for this openPMD series; licenses should use the SPDX identifier, other license terms with other:
  • default: other:unknown
  • examples:
    • CC-BY-4.0 for the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    • CC-BY-SA-4.0 for the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License
    • CC0-1.0 for the Creative Commons CC0 waiver
    • other:unknown this value means no information were provided by the data creator(s) about the restrictions or rights to use this data
  • advice to data creators: Do I have to select a license? No, but it is highly encouraged to do so if you want to share/publish your data and want it to be reused.

[DavidSagan]

Hmmm. I'm not sure what the rules are in other countries but in the USA it is not possible to copyright information. Only the expression of that information can copyrighted.

[ax3l]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is no legal advice. Check for your specific use case.)

Are you sure? What does information include in that case? Figures (2D pixel meshes), maps, databases, etc. can easily contain created data with enough originality that falls under general IP and copyright, as far as I know.

Even if something is not applicable to copyright in a certain country then e.g. open data licenses cover more than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data Adding an explicit license can clarify the situation for people that try to use the data, e.g. in automated workflows (e.g. data mining) for meta-studies and ML.

Some background:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties "all creative works as soon as they are fixed in a medium"
• OSM data base: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
• https://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf p. 10: "independent creation plus a modicum of creativity [...] To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even as light amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious’ it might be."

The only discussion I can find in the US is about databases that are a compilation of other works.

[DavidSagan]

Quite sure. For example from https://libguides.library.kent.edu/data-management/copyright :

Data are considered "facts" under U.S. law. They are not copyrightable because they are discovered, not created as original works. However, other intellectual property protections may be utilized to protect your work and ensure proper attribution.

Although data itself cannot be copyrighted, you may be able to own a copyright in the compilation of the data. Creative arrangement, annotation, or selection of data can be protected by copyright. Patent law may apply if your data collection leads to new and useful inventions such as machines, processes, manufactures, or improvements. Your data may be protected by trade secret if your formula, process, design, or method offers a commercial advantage. Keeping in mind that some contracts or grants come with non-disclosure agreements or other conditions requiring secrecy.

The standard example is the case of a telephone directory. You can copyright the layout of the directory but you cannot copyright the data so someone else is free to publish the same data as long as they use a different layout. For openPMD based files the layout is mandated by the openPMD standard so I do not believe anyone would have any copyright ownership on an openPMD based file.

Notice that I am talking about US law only. In the US there are no database rights. In the EU there is.

[ax3l]

Interesting, thanks! Yes, seems very different in other countries.

As found by the copyright.gov link above, "enhancing" a database with coprighted material is another thing that could trigger copyright. For example, if I carefully pre-select particles I write in a file, store a post-processed result again in openPMD, etc. this is likely to trigger copyright.

The telephone directory did not source that information, we in most cases do.

Either way, keeping the default other:unspecified is fine but won't improve the situation. Our audience is international anyway. Adding an explicit open data license is very common for scientific data, also in the US. Examples:

• https://figshare.com
• https://www.data.gov, e.g. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/federal-student-loan-program-data uses CC0-1.0
• https://www.zenodo.org

[DavidSagan]

After mulling it over a bit, I am against having a data license field in openPMD. If a person wants to keep their data private so be it. But if a openPMD dataset is shared I do not want to have to worry about rights. I do not like the idea that my actions in using an openPMD data set may set me up for being sued.

[ax3l]

A data license, just as open data itself as well as open source does never imply one is forced to publish this data not even any derived works. This is a common misunderstanding of open source and open data and indeed against the freedoms of open-X standards.

if a openPMD dataset is shared I do not want to have to worry about rights.

In most countries, default copyright will apply as would be with other:unspecified. Indeed, if you share data (private or publicly) as part of your work you already have to worry about rights, at least with your employer. Default copyright can imply that the receiver is potentially not allowed read, reproduce, derive, or do anything with the data unless explicitly permitted. You can still do that explicit permission when you share/publish the data ("email: here is the data you asked for." implies reading is fine), nothing changes.

Using well-established licenses just simplifies the situation, nobody has to use them. It just makes clear what the situation is - other:unspecified - nothing is specified, one has to think/inquire for oneself. Maybe another attribute value would highlight this better?

[DavidSagan]

A data license, just as open data itself as well as open source does never imply one is forced to publish this data.

I never said anything about mandatory sharing.

Using well-established licenses just simplifies the situation, nobody has to use them.

Actually I believe the opposite is true.

[ax3l]

I never said anything about mandatory sharing.

Oh then I misunderstood. I thought you mean this:

If a person wants to keep their data private so be it.

Which is totally fine, even with a specific license. (License terms can contain MoU, commercial licenses, etc. as well for some users. If the writer of the file does a valid claim is not our business.)

[DavidSagan]

The bottom line for me is still that if someone hands me a datafile I do not want to have to check if a certain field in a data file gives me permission to use it.

[ax3l]

Not a lawyer, but if a collaborateur hands you a data file this means you got an implicit, non-exclusive usage right to read it and nothing further, just as one would expect.

They could still keep the data file closed otherwise and license it elsewhere.

The use case is really the opposite, e.g. people that aggregate/crawl/scan data for meta-studies, training, etc. and cannot do a manual contact-and-inquire workflow for many individual data sets.

[DavidSagan]

Well if you want the standard could be amended to say that by default any data file that uses the standard has no license restrictions and that if any restrictions are to be placed, the restrictions have to be transmitted externally along with the file. I just do not want to be forced to look in the file itself.

[ax3l]

I just do not want to be forced to look in the file itself.

I see your point. But just as before, we will not force people to make their data essentially public domain.

Well, then it's easy: we limit entries to clearly defined FSF and OSI approved licenses and everything else is other:, which we document to raise a warning in data readers.
https://spdx.org/licenses

Data readers can also decide to abort on anything but the former and other:unspecified.