Licensing and Crediting of Federated Databases (including Unified Listing)
DRAFT.... work in progress!!
Need to define an appropriate license agreement with the information sources of the Solution Registry
An agreement should be signed between the organization that will host the Unified Listing/Solution Registry and the organizations that it will be federated with (i.e. the EASTIN partners, but also AbleData and GARI if needed). The agreement should include a license to use the data (within the terms and conditions that will be specified) and probably some “exemption of liability” clause (i.e. the organization providing the data to the Unified Listing will not be responsible for the use that will be made of those).
For defining the details of the license agreement we first need to see in more details how the system works and how data are used in the Unified Listing, but a preliminary agreement will be needed even from the start.
This issue is also related to the issue of clearly “showing the advantages for each information provider to be part of the repository federation”. See CREDITING below
This page is used to discuss three important issues in the process creating the Unified Listing (aka Solution Registry) by federating different databases of AT:
- preserving the provenance of the information by giving appropriate credit to each source
- establishing appropriate IPR agreements with the information providers in order to avoid possible infringements of data ownership,
- avoiding a decrease in the “visibility” of each information source and clearly show the advantages of being part of the Federated Repositories
For the latter issue, it must be noticed that the GPII Unified Listing will include information coming from different sources whose funding often relies on the “visibility” on the web (in practical terms this is often measured in terms of number of visits on the web portal). It is therefore important that the federation does not result in a decreased number of visitors on each source of information. Basically, the Unified Listing should represent an additional entry point for the information included in the different sources rather then an alternative to those
The three issues above are strictly related togheter. In particular, in order to establish an appropriate IPR agreement (between the organization that will manage the Unified Listing and the different Information providers) information is needed on how the data sent by the different AT information providers are going to be stored and used by the Unified Listing database and web portal.
The Unified Listing may use the data retrieved from the information providers (including, among others, the databases of the EASTIN network) in two ways:
- display the information to humans (end users or other stakeholders) through a website (e.g. the Unified Listing web portal).
- provide data to a machine (e.g. the matchmaker), for example to suggest/configure the appropriate solution for a specific end-user of the Cloud4all system. In this scenario data are only used by machines and not shown to humans, otherwise we fall into the first case (i.e. the matchmaker is not to be used by a human to search for information on AT products)
In the second case (data provided to a machine, and used exclusively by machines), the "visibility" of the information sources (issue number 3 above) should not be a problem. Also the issue of crediting information sources (issue number 1 above) doesn't seem to be problematic. <the matchmaker, or any other component in GPII/Cloud4all using the data, should credit the sources of information>
When data provided to the Unified Listing are displayed on a website (i.e. the Unified Listing web portal) a design could be implemented so that the user can "jump" to the website of the original sources to find more specific information. A possible strategy for that could be that the Unified Listing web portal includes information relevant at "transnational level" while the information relevant at "national" or "local" level is included in the original information sources. Example of information relevant at "local" level include: national prescription codes, local distributors/resellers, national legislations, ... Also a mecchanism to count the number of visit to each record and communicate it to the original sources of information could be established, so that the information provider can consider this as "indirect visits" on his website.
When the technical implementation of those elements will be more clear, an IPR agreement will be established between the EASTIN association and the organization that will be responsible for the Unified Listing (both during the cloud4all project and beyond). The agreement will include terms and conditions for using the data (e.g. crediting the sources, linking to the original document, providing the number of visits for each record, ...). This agreement will be prepared (and hopefully signed) before the end of the Cloud4all project.
TO BE CONTINUED