I'm curious about the license of the style files in the repository. Zotero itself is under Educational Community License, are the csl files under the same license?
No; some of the csl files disclose a different license they are under (GPL & CC-SA are the ones I know of off-the-top-of-my-head). Many style files don't contain an explicit license & it would be prudent to ask the writers of the CSL file.
Is there any benefit for licensing the styles other than encouraging attribution? I guess that the styles authored by (former) Zotero employees could easily be converted to a certain license, if desired.
We need to protect the IP around CSL, which I think presumes it's better to be explicit about the terms of use around the styles.
While INAL, I think it would be nice to have a policy on this. Maybe all styles by default have one of the CC license, but one can choose from one or two others.
BTW, I'd really like to have help on the MakeCSL wizard idea, and I'd love for that to include a license checkbox and/or pop-up ;-)
Would it be useful to: - have a default license for the Zotero Style Repository for styles that haven't set a license? I guess this could be added upon committing a style just like the <updated/> element is filled. - specify some licenses in CSL? This will make it easier later on to sort on certain license types.
Would it be useful to have a default license for the Zotero Style Repository
As long as that default license was:
Advertised on all pages re. committing styles
Could be over-ridden
Not applied retroactively without style authors' permission
Was suitably free (e.g. distribution/modification/commercial use allowed)
then it isn't a bad idea. Should "rights" be a mandatory branch in a valid CSL file, or does this add too much pain/bloat compared to what we want to fix?
specify some licenses in CSL? This will make it easier later on to sort on certain license types.
With the proliferation of licenses, I don't know if we should enumerate them & it definitely should not be required that people pick a license from a limited list. How about allowing something like:<link rel="rights" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/"/>This would give a more canonical means of categorization without relying on the (free form) rights tag.
BTW, should it be allowed at all to use certain more restrictive licenses? E.g. Attribution-No Derivative Works (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/) seems quite tricky, as all styles have a lot in common, and it is often impossible to tell which style served as a basis for a certain other style.
BTW, should it be allowed at all to use certain more restrictive licenses?
Yes, of course. While I hope that nobody would use such licenses, style authors should be able to choose whatever they want.
all styles have a lot in common, and it is often impossible to tell which style served as a basis for a certain other style.
You can create a style without basing it on another, though. I think you can often tell when a style borrows from another. It is the responsibility of the style writer to choose an acceptable license & to only borrow from styles that are licensed acceptably. Obviously, a cc by-sa would not be able to be the basis for a "no derivatives" licensed file.
Upgrade Storage
We can explicitly allow modification & reuse of the files in other programs (counter to the more restrictive EndNote style files).
While INAL, I think it would be nice to have a policy on this. Maybe all styles by default have one of the CC license, but one can choose from one or two others.
BTW, I'd really like to have help on the MakeCSL wizard idea, and I'd love for that to include a license checkbox and/or pop-up ;-)
- have a default license for the Zotero Style Repository for styles that haven't set a license? I guess this could be added upon committing a style just like the <updated/> element is filled.
- specify some licenses in CSL? This will make it easier later on to sort on certain license types.
- Advertised on all pages re. committing styles
- Could be over-ridden
- Not applied retroactively without style authors' permission
- Was suitably free (e.g. distribution/modification/commercial use allowed)
then it isn't a bad idea. Should "rights" be a mandatory branch in a valid CSL file, or does this add too much pain/bloat compared to what we want to fix?With the proliferation of licenses, I don't know if we should enumerate them & it definitely should not be required that people pick a license from a limited list. How about allowing something like:<link rel="rights" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/"/>This would give a more canonical means of categorization without relying on the (free form) rights tag.BTW, should it be allowed at all to use certain more restrictive licenses? E.g. Attribution-No Derivative Works (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/) seems quite tricky, as all styles have a lot in common, and it is often impossible to tell which style served as a basis for a certain other style.