[Bioc-devel] License question for experimental data package

[Kasper Daniel Hansen]

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.davide at 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 <hpages at 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 at 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: hpages at fredhutch.org
> > Phone:  (206) 667-5791
> > Fax:    (206) 667-1319
> >
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]