Determine licensing for the Clade Ontology

[gaurav]

There are three types of content that will probably remain in this repository:

1. The components of the Clade Ontology as individual PHYX files in JSON.
2. The scripts that generate and test the Clade Ontology.
3. The synthesized Clade Ontology in OWL.

The scripts should be placed under an open source software development license, such as the Apache 2.0 license (which we currently use) or the MIT license. The JSON and OWL files will be trickier to deal with: we would like to make as much of it available under CC0 by waiving our copyright and placing those files into the public domain. However, some content will be copyrighted by others (e.g. verbatim clade definitions, other clarifying text), and we can't just place that content into the public domain ourselves. Hilmar suggested that we might want to consult experts about this.

This issue is intended to track the licensing issues around PHYX and OWL files in this repository and should be closed once we've identified the best licenses for all of these components.

[hlapp]

For reference, here's an example of the a natural language clade definition:

clade-ontology/testcases_too_slow/Wojciechowski, 2013/paper.json

Line 74 in 187c78c

"cladeDefinition": "Papilionoideae (L.) DC. [M. F. Wojciechowski], converted clade name.\n\nDefinition (branch-modified, node-based): The most inclusive crown clade containing Castanospermum australe A. Cunn. ex Mudie 1829 and Vicia faba L. 1753 but not Caesalpinia gilliesii (Wall. ex Hook.) D. Dietr. 1840, Gleditsia triacanthos L., or Dialium guianense (Aubl.) Sandwith 1939. Because sister group relationships are better resolved and supported than basally-branching ingroup relationships within this clade, a branch-modified node-based definition was used to maximize definitional and compositional stability (Cantino et al., 2007).\n\nComments on name. Papilionoideae (L.) DC. 1825 is a preexisting scientific name established under the rank-based ICBN and applied to the subfamily of the Leguminosae Jussieu 1789 that corresponds to this clade. Faboideae Rudd 1968 is an alternative name for this subfamily of Fabaceae Lindl. 1836 or Leguminosae, whereas the similar Papilionaceae Giseke 1792 is the appropriate name for this taxon when the subfamily is treated as a separate family from the Caesalpiniaceae R. Br. 1814 and Mimosaceae R. Br. 1814.\n\nReference phylogeny: Cardoso et al. (2012; Fig. 1). The monophyly of Papilionoideae has been demonstrated in all higher-level molecular phylogenetic analyses published to date beginning with Käss and Wink (1996) and Doyle et al. (1997), albeit sometimes without robust statistical support. Later analyses such as Wojciechowski et al. (2004;Fig. 2) and Cardoso et al. (2012; Fig. 3) have provided unequivocal, robust support for this clade.\n\nDiagnostic apomorphy: Flowers generally zygomorphic, or some actinomorphic, adaxial petal generally outside the adjacent lateral petals, sepals generally united at base.\n\nComposition: This clade, comprised of more than 478 genera and 13,800 species (Lewis et al., 2005), is cosmopolitan in distribution and includes the vast majority of agriculturally important legumes such as Pisum sativum L. (pea), Medicago sativa L. (alfalfa), Trifolium L. (clovers), Vicia L. (vetches), Lens Mill. (lentils), Lupinus L. (lupins), Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybean), Phaseolus L. (beans), Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet (hyacinth bean), and Arachis hypogaea L. (peanut).\n\nSynonyms/Etymology: Papilionoideae (L.) DC. 1825, Faboideae Rudd 1968, and the informal name “Papilionoids”. The name “papilionoid” most likely comes from the resemblance of the typical or characteristic flower to a butterfly (papilio, from Latin), especially when the flower is dissected into its component five petals.",

Maybe @jar398 has an idea as to who best to consult with on this (or also opinion on rights, based on Patterson et al (2014)).

[jar398]

I am happy to talk on the phone about matters like this. Send me email if you would like to.

For basic background I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[jar398]

Of course it would be good for you to talk to Willi Egloff (the attorney who was a coauthor on that paper) or to Donat Agosti (who has strong activist opinions; you probably know what he's doing with Plazi).