Clarification in specification on license_id & license_url allowed values

[mikael-epigram]

From the 3.0-RC spec there seems to be set a requirement that either license_id or license_url must be provided.

license_id: REQUIRED if the dataset is provided under a standard license. (...) Provide license_id rather than license_url if the license is included in the SPDX License List.

license_url: REQUIRED if the dataset is provided under a customized license. (...) Do not specify a license_url if license_id is specified.

In addition, for both values: If the license_id and license_url fields are blank or omitted, this indicates that the feed is provided under the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication.

Is it correct that the fields are (Conditionally) REQUIRED, when setting neither is a valid option?

[mplsmitch]

Is it correct that the fields are (Conditionally) REQUIRED, when setting neither is a valid option?

As of the v3.0 Draft, in order to be considered compliant with the specification, feeds MUST contain either license_url or license_id. A feed that does not contain one of these fields would not be valid.

I'm not much of a fan of the creative commons language used in those two fields. I don't think it would give data consumers the level of assurance needed to consume data where no license is declared. I think the intention of this language was to push data producers to license their data, not to provide a valid option to not license. I would support replacing it with something like: If the license_id and license_url fields are blank or omitted, the feed is considered invalid

The language under the Licensing section also needs updating from SHOULD to MUST.

[futuretap]

I would support replacing it with something like

If the license_id and license_url fields are blank or omitted, the feed is considered **public domain**.

[josee-sabourin]

Hi all! I would like to re-ignite this discussion while v3.0 is still in release candidate stage. The current language in v3.0-RC is: If the license_id and license_url fields are blank or omitted, this indicates that the feed is provided under the Creative Commons Universal Public Domain Dedication.

We have heard from some consumers that this language may not be complete enough to be able to reasonably assume the data license. Would love to hear people's thoughts on this!

[mobilitydataio]

This discussion has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 60 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[mikael-epigram]

So to summarize, there are two options suggested:

1. Require that license_id or license_url MUST be provided
2. Make both license_id and license_url OPTIONAL or RECOMMENDED, and if none of them are provided, the license is implicitly public domain. It is unclear if this is sufficient for consumers.

[mobilitydataio]

This discussion has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[mobilitydataio]

This discussion has been closed due to inactivity. Discussions can always be reopened after they have been closed.