View source for OpenOntologyRepository IPR

[[File:OOR-Logo.png]]
== Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) Initiative  ==

''This is the page documenting the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) IPR Policy, issues, references and related activities.'' 

= The Official [[OOR]] Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy  =

Our intent is to make the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) software and system, as well as the content hosted in the open public instance of the OOR (repository) that this OOR-team will operate and maintain, to be as free, open, and unencumbered by IPR restrictions as we possibly can, so as to allow users of the software, system, and ontology content, the maximum freedom and flexibility. As such, we shall stipulate that ... 

* software codes contributed to the OOR effort has to carry the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]). 
** the above will be the default position, unless it is otherwise mutually agreed in writing, between an authorized representative of the OOR team and the contributor. Such exception, even if agreed upon, needs to bind the contributing software codes to a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license, such as (included, but not limited to) the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html MIT License], the [http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License version 2.0] or the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Mozilla Public License 1.1] (MPL); 
** it is, of course, also acceptable if the software contribution in question is in the public domain; 
** Software libraries, under either "gift" or "reciprocal" open software licenses, may also be used in the OOR software or system. 

* Any content contribution to OOR should specify an IPR license, as part of the OOR "gatekeeping" requirements, which will be maintained in the content contribution metadata. Each repository using the OOR software can specify its own set of acceptable IPR content licenses. 

* That content (essentially ontologies or other "knowledge organizational structures (KOS's)") '''contributed to the open public instance of OOR''' (which the OOR team will operate and maintain) will need to be licensed under either one of the following: 
** the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]), or 
** the "attribution only" Creative Commons Attribution License ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CC BY 4.0] or its successor), or 
** the content being contributed is in the public domain. 

''... this has been [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_12_17#nid2KEF adopted by the OOR team on 17-Dec-2010] subsequent to a series of meetings, consultations and dialog -- ref., in particular, [[OpenOntologyRepository_IPR|OOR-IPR mini-series]], subsequent OOR-team meeting discussions other related activities.'' 

''Effective 2014.11.23, the [[OpenOntologyRepository_IPR|content license clause]] regarding the "attribution only" Creative Commons Attribution License was updated to CC BY 4.0 (from CC BY 3.0). ... [https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/oor-forum/2014-October/000015.html ref.]'' 

----

== OOR-IPR mini-series: [[OpenOntologyRepository]]: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy and Issues  ==

'''... a collaborative effort by: [[OOR]]-[[Ontolog]]-[[NCBO]]-[[CC]]-[[IAOA]]-[[OASIS]].''' 

One of the critical tasks at hand for the OOR team is to identify & clarify IPR issues related to the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] Initiative (and, invariably, to Ontology in general), and adopt a consensus IPR policy for OOR contributions. 

To this end, a mini-series of virtual events are being organized: 

* '''2010_09_09 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-1: an exposition on relevant IPR regimes - Keynote speaker: [[GeorgeStrawn|George Strawn]] - Chair: [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] - Panelists: [[JamieClark]], [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_09 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

* '''2010_09_16 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-2: what are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories (and ontologies in general)? - Chair: Mark Musen - Panelists: [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]], [[AlanRector|Alan Rector]], [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]], [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_16 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

* '''2010_09_30 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS Panel Discussion - "IPR issues in Ontology and the OOR" session-3: discussion and consensus on licensing arrangements for the OOR Initiative, and positions we might take on related IPR issues - chair: [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] - Panelists: [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]], [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]], [[JamieClark]] - ConferenceCall_2010_09_30 &nbsp;&nbsp;''' 

... see background and preparation work at: /Discussion 

----

== (candidate) IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative  ==

[ ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2JRN ] 

Our intent is to make the [[OpenOntologyRepository]] (OOR) software and system, as well as the content hosted in the open public instance of the OOR (repository) that this OOR-team will operate and maintain, to be as free, open, and unencumbered by IPR restrictions as we possibly can, so as to allow users of the software, system, and ontology content, the maximum freedom and flexibility. As such, we shall stipulate that ... 

* software codes contributed to the OOR effort has to carry the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]). 
** the above will be the default position, unless it is otherwise mutually agreed in writing, between an authorized representative of the OOR team and the contributor. Such exception, even if agreed upon, needs to bind the contributing software codes to a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license, such as (included, but not limited to) the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html MIT License], the [http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License version 2.0] or the [http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Mozilla Public License 1.1] (MPL); 
** it is, of course, also acceptable if the software contribution in question is in the public domain; 
** Software libraries, under either "gift" or "reciprocal" open software licenses, may also be used in the OOR software or system. 

* Any content contribution to OOR should specify an IPR license, as part of the OOR "gatekeeping" requirements, which will be maintained in the content contribution metadata. Each repository using the OOR software can specify its own set of acceptable IPR content licenses. 

* That content (essentially ontologies or other "knowledge organizational structures (KOS's)") '''contributed to the open public instance of OOR''' (which the OOR team will operate and maintain) will need to be licensed under either one of the following: 
** the [http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php "Simplified (two-clause) BSD License"] ([http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html [[FreeBSD]] License]), or 
** the "attribution only" Creative Commons Attribution License ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC BY 3.0] or its successor), or 
** the content being contributed is in the public domain. 

== (candidate) Additional Community Action  ==

[ http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2JRX ] 

As a joint community co-organizing this effort, we seek support and (optional) endorsements by individual members of the communities involved on the following: 

* We hypothesize that ontology is fundamental to enabling interoperability and should be freely available for its full potential to be realized for the good of all. We, therefore, support the position that ontologies should not be patentable. This joint-community will provide the platform for the thorough analysis and debate to validate that hypothesis, build out a strong case to support our position, which will then enable us to adequately inform the process that will be making the official ruling in this matter. 

* We will encourage those members of our community who believe that software patents ( [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2GOZ ref.] ) will discourage, rather than encourage, innovation, to actively participate in the public debate and in collective efforts that advocate the position that software should not be patentable. 

----

== OOR-IPR mini-series Goals & Objectives  ==

This "OOR-IPR mini-series" will, hopefully, start a dialog among the global ontology community and other stakeholder communities, to specifically address IPR issues relating to the "open ontology repository (OOR)" initiative. The discussion will, invariably, touch upon IPR issues pertaining to ontology in general as well. 

This mini-series is jointly organized by the OOR-team, the Ontolog-community, NCBO (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology), CC (Creative Commons), IAOA (the International Association for Ontology and its Applications) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards). 

Given the complexity of the issues involved, one can look at this mini-series to merely be the beginning of a quest, by the collaborating parties and their communities, to fully understand the issues, and to get themselves into a position to address them. 

As a community, we trust we will, over the course of this mini-series and subsequent actions and events, address a very important set of issues, that really have to be cleared, before the world can realize the full potential of open ontology repositories enabled by the science & technology of ontology and semantics. 

== Issues we will be addressing  ==

We need to '''address issues relating to:''' 

* '''Technology''' - the open source software and associated open technologies that will allow us to stand up federated open ontology repositories; how they could be enlisted, and how the community can contribute them, 

* '''Content''' - the open ontology or ontology modules that will be curated and shared through this federated system of open ontology repositories (envisioned by the [[OOR]] initiative), and 

* '''Standards''' - how the open content (or even the open technology) involved in the [[OOR]] initiative can migrate toward becoming defacto or officially adopted standards. 

'''Pertinent assumptions and issues include''' (but not limited to) ... 

: 1) We are going under the assumption that, similar to software, an
ontology, or ontology module, may be owned, and that this ownership
may be protected under copyright law.  We are also assuming that the
rights of ownership include the ability to distribute some rendering
of an ontology and to have the privileges associated with using the
ontology specified within a license agreement.  This is analogous to
the copyright licensing model widely used for traditional
software-related artifacts.  One of the tenets of the OOR initiative
is to promote and develop the mechanisms required to support the OPEN
distribution of ontologies through federated repositories.  Therefore, Ontology
artifacts contained within such repositories will need to be
associated with an OPEN license to realize this objective.  This model
of open dissemination is analogous to the one employed by Open Source
software community.  However, we believe that there are specific
differences between traditional software artifacts and ontologies that
render existing Open Source licenses ineffective for this purpose.  Licenses promoted
by the Creative Commons may be better suited to for licensing ontology-centric 
artifacts.  However, how the current Creative Commons licenses map to the requirements
of the OOR requires further investigation.  Therefore, one of the
objectives of the IPR panel session is to evaluate existing open
licenses and to make specific recommendations regarding ontology
licensing.  If the panel should find that an appropriate license does
not exist, then the panel will work with one of the existing open
licensing groups to develop a license that is tailored to the needs of
an the OOR objectives.  Note that the potential concern over the
proliferation of open licenses for ontologies will be considered and,
if at all possible, strategies will be developed to help minimize this
concern. 

: 2) The OOR initiative is tasked with the OPEN distribution of
ontologies through federated repositories.  However, the term OPEN
needs to be defined.  There are specific use cases that call for
controlled access to an open ontology repository.  For example, there
may be specific policies that prevent ontology dissemination to
specific jurisdictions.  There have also been use cases presented on
the OOR discussion forum that require controlled access to proprietary
extensions of the OOR.  These use cases suggest that IPR within an OOR
instance, or federation of instances, may vary according to a specific
ontology.  The panel session will consider these differences and make
recommendations on how to manage the variability of rights.  This
will include, but is not limited to, the concerns associated with
integrating ontologies that are released according to different
licenses.  Issues with license compatibility will be specifically
addressed. 

: 3) The federation of OOR instances is expected to be populated with
content from a variety of sources originating from a variety of
jurisdictions.  This raises concern over the provenance of ontology
content being contributed.  A similar concern is currently echoed within the
Open Source software community.  The legal integrity of the OOR could
be undermined if the ownership of contributed content were to be
brought into questions.  This is similar to the concern that arose
Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) claimed that specific contributions made
by IBM to the Linux kernel were actual owned by SCO.  SCO subsequently
approached several Linux end users demanding compensation.  The OOR
IPR panel session will consider this concern and will recommend
mechanisms to help vet the provenance of both software and content 
contributions made to the OOR initiative, thus protecting
the legal integrity of the OOR federation. 

: 4) Ontological engineering is maturing rapidly and best-practices are
emerging to support the construction of ontologies as a collection of
engineered artifacts.  One specific practice is constructing modular
ontologies.  Although this is a practice that the OOR should support,
there are certain IPR concerns that arise.  If we assume that the OOR
will allow ontologies to be contributed according to a multitude of
licenses, how does this impact the licensing of an aggregating
ontology, otherwise known as a derivative work?  Specific issues
include the compatibility and viral nature of certain licenses.  Note
that similar concerns exist within the Open Source software community
and dealing with this issue has become a major challenge.  The OOR IPR
panel session has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons for
the benefit of the ontology community. 

: 5) There are efforts underway to convince standards bodies such as
ISO, IEC, ANSI etc. to adopt ontologies as a means of formally
specifying standards.  The OOR IPR panel session will consider this
possibility and will attempt to structure their recommendations to
facilitate this endeavor. 

: 6) Given the fundamental nature of ontologies (Upper Ontologies or 
Foundational Ontologies), the IPR panel will consider the very notion 
of whether or not ontologies (or, at least, certain ontologies) should 
be given IPR protection ... along the same lines of thinking as: 
:: o  the fact that no one can copyright the alphabets or book titles 
:: o  the fact that no one is allowed to patent algorithms, and 
:: o  the ongoing debate about software patents or whether genes can be patented 

== IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative  ==

see: (draft) consensus IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2JRN here]. 

== The team  ==

We thank the following institutions and individuals for their contribution to make this "OOR-IPR mini-series" a reality. 

=== Co-orgainzers  ===

* The Open Ontology Repository ([[OOR]]) Initiative 
* The [[Ontolog]] Community 
* (US) National Center for Biomedical Ontology ([[NCBO]]) 
* Creative Commons ([[CC]]) 
* International Association for Ontology and its Applications ([[IAOA]]) 
* Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards ([[OASIS]]) 

=== Organizing Committee  ===

* [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] 
* Mark Musen 
* [[CameronRoss|Cameron Ross]] 
* David Rubenson 
* [[NigamShah|Nigam Shah]] 
* [[LaurentLiscia|Laurent Liscia]] 
* Nicola Guarino 
* [[JohnBateman|John Bateman]] 
* [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]] 
* [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] 

=== Panelists & Advisors  ===

* [[GeorgeStrawn|George Strawn]] 
* [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] 
* [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]] 
* [[JamesBryceClark]] 
* [[JohnSowa|John F. Sowa]] 
* ... 

== References and Resources  ==

* [[OpenOntologyRepository]] initiative - homepage 

* About the OOR effort 
** 2008_04_29 - [[OntologySummit2008_Communique]] 
** 2008_04_29 - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008/FaceToFaceAgenda#nid1BLS Presentation on OOR at the Ontology Summit 2008] 
** 2010_06_24 - [[OpenOntologyRepository|Presentation on OOR at the SemTech2010 Conference]] 

* "Open Source Definition" by [[BrucePerens|Bruce Perens]] - http://www.opensource.org/osd.html 

* Creative Commons - http://creativecommons.org/about/history/ 

* "What is Science Commons?" by [[JohnWilbanks|John Wilbanks]] - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5695 

* Open Source Licensing: Academic v. Reciprocal - ref. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/os-license2/ 

* IPR Policy of the Eclipse Project - http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf 
** EPL (Eclipse Public License) and EDL (Eclipse Distribution License) - ref. http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ 

* Open Source Licenses - ref. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category - ref. pertinent licenses: 
** Apache License (v2) - http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml 
** MPL (Mozilla Public License) - http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ 
** BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) - ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses 
** GPLv2 (GNU General Public License, version 2) - see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html 
** GPLv3 (GNU General Public License, version 3 - 29 June 2007 (current)) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html 
** LGPL (GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License) - ref. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php 
** AGPL (GNU Affero General Public License) - ref. http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html 
** Examples: 
*** Apache Software: IPR Registry - http://archive.gria.org/docs/ogsadai/1.0/docs/IPR-registry.html 
** Open Source License Proliferation Report - http://www.opensource.org/proliferation-report 

* Open Content Licenses 
** Creative Commons Licenses (4.0) - http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses 
** Open Database License (ODbL) - http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ 
** Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) - http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ 

* Creative Commons content licenses (especially in regard to the CC BY 3.0 to 4.0 update) 
** [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
** [2] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4#Version_4.0_Policy_Decisions 
** [3] discussion on the [ontoiop-forum] list when the issue of "choice of license for the [[OntoIOp]] Registry came up which may be relevant - see:
https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/2014-October/000043.html 
** [4] discussion on [oor-forum] resulting in the adoption of the update from "CC BY 3.0" to "CC BY 4.0" in the OOR IPR Policy - see: https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/oor-forum/2014-December/000028.html 

* OASIS IPR Policy - http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php 

* on Software Patents, ... etc. 
** "[http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Are Software Patents Evil?]" by Paul Graham / Mar. 2006 
** "[http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/8105026/ Abolishing software patents would unleash more innovation]" by Vivek Wadhwa / Aug 9, 2010. 
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent 

* First-to-invent v. first-to-file patent regime - ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent 

* (US) Patent Reform Act of 2010: An Overview - http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/patent-reform-act-of-2010-an-overview.html 

[[Category:OOR]]