 |
 |
Thanks very much, Tom. This is really helpful stuff. On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, > > Here are the relevant source docs at Stanford: > > Research Policy Handbook, Section 9.2: Copyright Policy, which states that > the copyright of artistic, scholarly and pedagogical works remain with the > creator, unless the work is a work-for-hire, or an institutional work. (We > interpret that our work is generally if not always work-for-hire.) > > Office of Technology Licensing, Software, which states that > Stanford-copyrighted software can be licensed to the academic or commercial > community under an open source license. (It can also be put in the public > domain.) > > Office of Technology Licensing, Open Source Primer, which states that > Stanford staff may open source software with the appropriate departmental > approval. > > Based on the university policies, our departmental policy states: > > As a matter of practice, we publish software into publicly accessible > code repositories. This facilitates the review, exchange, reuse and > possible code contributions from other sites--a key part of our development > strategy and methodology. As best practice, we endeavor to put a clear > license on this code so others know what they may and may not do with it. > > > > Staff should release it under an open source license. > > > > If it is a contribution to a current codebase that has an approved OSS > license, we should contribute the code back under the this same license. > > If it is new Stanford code, then it should use an Apache 2 license as > the default. > > Why Apache 2? It is desirable to have a single license to consistently > to apply across all our products: > > so developers and managers need not try and follow a (potentially > complex) decision tree on which license to apply > > so potential collaborators can encounter a single, well-known OSS > license on our code, which facilitates adoption and contribution > > most if not all current projects (e.g., Hydra, Blacklight, Fedora, solr, > grant-funded development is licensed under an Apache 2 license, either due > to an IP agreement (with the funder), or Contributor License Agreements > (CLA's) and project convention with other project stakeholders > > as software created in one project / effort often makes it way into > reuse in another project (by design); a single license allows for this > portability (i.e., local Stanford code could easily become Hydra code > without a relicense or rewrite) > > How to License the Code: Follow the instructions here: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html The name of the Copyright > Owner is "The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University" > > > > Copyright yyyy The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior > University > > > > Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); > > you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. > > You may obtain a copy of the License at > > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > > > Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software > > distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, > > WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. > > See the License for the specific language governing permissions and > > limitations under the License. > > > > > > Finally, the Hydra Project has put considerable effort into defining a > clear, repeatable licensing procedure for the community's efforts, which is > particulalry useful for community-sourced efforts. (A lot of our work is > contributing to shared projects, not stand-alone projects.) The Hydra > community software licensing mechanics are outlined here: > https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/hydra/Code+Copyright+Statement. (FYI, > there is much current discussion within UC about how to legally and > effectively contribute to Hydra, so this may be particularly germane.) > > Hope this helps, > > - Tom > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, John Kunze wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > This sounds terrific. Yes, it would be very useful if you could share > the > > source docs. I assume that the Research Policy Handbook is at > > https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook ? > > > > -John > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Tom Cramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >> John, > >> > >> At Stanford, this is governed by the Research Policy Handbook; there is > >> some tech transfer and copyright detail, but essentially it says staff > may > >> release University-funded code with with an open source license with > >> officer (Dean-level) approval. > >> > >> At Stanford, we have put this into place with blanket approval for > >> releasing any code we deem shareable under a license (Apache 2 being > >> default, but not required). We have similar approval under the same > terms > >> to release non-code artifacts under a CC license. > >> > >> Based on this, we have templates for inserting license files into repos > on > >> Github, and default text to use for copyright statements. > >> > >> I can dig up source docs if that's useful. > >> > >> - Tom > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:22 PM, John A. Kunze wrote: > >> > >>> Does anyone have existing institutional policy guidelines for staff who > >>> contribute to open source software projects? > >>> > >>> A group at the California Digital Library is looking to learn from > prior > >>> art in dealing appropriately with non-technical things like licensing, > >>> intellectual property, legal policy, cost/benefit issues, etc. > >>> > >>> It would be great if any of you have something like that to share. > >>> > >>> -John > >> >