User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/JATS-Con 2014/Licensing

Truly open
Means free to reuse, revise, remix and redistribute, as laid out in the Budapest Open Access Initiative ("NC" and "ND" are not acceptable). It is ironic that most of the Open Access Subset in PMC is not open by this definition.

Short version
If it cannot be used on Wikipedia, it is not Open Access.

Examples

 * Good license tagging (example from the Tag Library documentation):
 * Everything inside the   wrapper
 * Has an unambiguous canonical Creative Commons URI in the @xlink:href attribute of the   element.
 *  is used for human-readable text.

...      This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


 * Problems in the wild:
 * Contradictions between human- and machine-readable (examples)
 * Human- and machine-readable versions agree but contradict the journal's license statement (example)
 * License information outside the element (examples)
 * Contradictory URIs: mostly fixed by PMC (examples)
 * Missing license information altogether (examples)

Impact

 * PMC's search-by-license feature is crippled.
 * Makes re-use very difficult (OAMI is a good case-study)

Other license-related issues

 * How to tag articles that have different licenses for different parts, such as the article text vs. data? (F1000 Research example)
 * How to tag incremental licenses? (example, not machine readable)