Licenses

[EstherPlomp]

Based on the information you read in Data and Code Licences, please post your license preference for data and/or code below.

Don't forget to list both a license for the data and the code: the licenses used are different!

[nnadalalemany]

My preferred license for the data is CC BY, because I find it important to be accredited for my work for ethical reasons, and because it is necessary for a good traceability of how something was built to better udnerstand it.
My preferred license for the code is GNU LGPLv3.

[EstherPlomp]

Thanks for sharing! As you haven't shared why you would prefer LGPLv3 - what would be your main reason for this choice? I'm asking because your preferences for the data and software licenses seem to differ slightly.

[Pjieter]

For data, my preferred license is CC-BY, because I want to be credited for the work I have done.
For software my preferred license is the MIT license, so anyone can use it however they want, but again with credit.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good to me! 👍

[RiccardoDalMas]

My preferred license for data is CC BY, as it allows for maximum dissemination while retaining the credit for the original creation.
For software, GNU LGPLv3 would be an appropriate choice, as it allows for wide use, but with credit and statement of changes, ensuring traceability.
However, before locking in on any license decision for the different types of data and software we will generate, I would need to discuss with my supervisors. The license chosen my also change depending on the stage of the PhD.

[EstherPlomp]

Indeed - license decisions may change pending on your project and also your collaborators!

GNU LGPLv3 doesn't only ensure traceability, but also that the code will remain open source - derivative code must be open source and distributed under the same or equivalent license. In that sense it is kind of like the CC-BY-SA license for data.

[cfprimavera]

For data I like CC-BY. I think it's important to be credited for my work, but that others can make maximum use of it, even commercially. For software, I consider GNU LGPLv3 the most appropriate for the same reasons. This may change in the future if changes are made to where my funding comes from, depending on contract requirements.

[EstherPlomp]

If you want to ensure commercial use, GNU LGPLv3 may not be the best license to choose for software. As these license terms state that any code building upon your code must also be distributed under the same or equivalent licence, some companies do not like to use software distributed under this license. It could mean that they have to make code publicly available that they do not want to share. This is fine if the companies are happy to do so, but some will avoid it. A more permissive license (like MIT, BSD, Apache) is more commercial-use friendly.

[EstherPlomp]

And indeed - licenses are very context specific :)

[federa7]

Regarding data, I would prefer the use of my data under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike) license. Although this license is technically more restrictive in its re-usability, I have personal conviction for my work not being exploited individually for commercial purposes and I believe that anyone else benefiting from my data should, similarly, allow others to benefit from the work built upon it. Hence the Share Alike part of the license. To my current understanding, this is how I would prefer it, although there might be further implications I am not currently aware of (if you have any in mind, let me know!).
For software, the GNU GPLv3 license makes sense to me for reasons of traceability and accessibility for future users. At the moment I am benefiting of software publicly available with a similar license although excluding commercial uses.
However, at the end, the option to go to regarding licensing will be limited/directed by journals requirements and the data repositories they request to be used, so I should remain flexible.

[EstherPlomp]

I think this is an excellent summary of the licenses, and also perhaps any future limitations that you may have in choosing them. Well done 👍

Your choices are indeed a bit more restrictive, but I don't think that this will impact things negatively. If people really do not want to comply with the license requirements they can always still contact you about the possibilities for reuse.

[eugenhu]

For data, I like CC-BY as it's very permissive and all the user needs to do is give proper attribution. I don't think the "data" our lab produces can be used commercially anyway as it depends a lot on our particular lab setup.

For code, I will probably use the MIT license. The alternative I considered is the GPL licenses, but again the code I produce is unlikely to be heavily modified and incorporated into commercial software, and so I have no justification for a more restrictive license.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good! I think it might actually be difficult for most research data on it's own to be commercially exploited.

[giacomolastrucci]

Regarding data, I prefer CC-BY licence, because ensure open reusability and author credits.
For software, I would use GNU LGPLv3 for what I am allowed to release open source, while a substantial part will be owned by the industrial partner that is funding the project.

[EstherPlomp]

Always double check with supervisor/industrial partner - especially if part of your project is funded by these partners - indeed!

You have not provided a reason for why you prefer LGPLv3: it is a bit different compared to your license preference, hence why I would be curious to hear why this is your preference?

[giacomolastrucci]

Hi Ester, Thanks for the feedback.
The reason why I chose the LGPLv3 license is to ensure that the code will remain open source, also in case of software build upon it. In this case, I am of course referring to the part of the software which I will be allowed to distribute open source.
For the rest, I will discuss with my supervisor and industrial partner.

[EstherPlomp]

Great, thanks for elaborating! Sounds good to me 👍

[msegami1]

If my industrial partner allows me to publish, my preferred license for data would be CC BY-SA 4.0 "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International", since I would like the data to be reused but keeping author credits and guaranteeing that any adaptation can still be used by anyone.

Regarding code, at this stage, I don't think I will produce code of my own. I will probably re-use code from others.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good! Always check the licenses of the code that you will reuse as well if this is publicly available! If it is internally used within the group licenses are less applicable :)

[PJL-vandenberg]

For Data License I would choose CC-BY, as it necessitates proper accreditation of the work I've done, but we wish to allow (and encourage) distribution, commercialisation and adaptation of the data we find.
For the Software License, the limited amount of software that I would produce is an assistive tool to find the chemical system I am designing. Therefore I would use a MIT License, allowing for any modifications and or distributions, as long as proper accreditation is followed here as well.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good! 👍

[ieacdroste]

For data, my preferred license is CC-BY because I find it important to be credited for my work and I would like others to be able to re-use my data.
For software I prefer the Apache license, for the same reasons. My main research output is code for processing microscopy data. I want it to be possible for companies to incorporate my algorithm into their microscope software, so it will reach a broad audience.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good! 👍

[TimTheChemist123]

For data, I would distinguish three different cases: for most of my research I assume a CC-BY license will be fine, this because the research will be mostly geared towards a scientific audience, although perhaps at times in the part of the spectrum closer to application. If we foresee a commercial use for our work in the near future, I would consider a patent rather than a CC BY-NC-ND license, although I am not sure in what class a patent would fall with respect to licenses. Finally, if we think that our technology should remain in the noncommercial domain only, I would include a CC-BY-SA license, so that the same license has to be applied to derivatives of it.

And I will likely not be using any code in my research.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good! For patents it will be different: We apply licenses to data/code that is publicly available. If you have a patent you do not make this information public (yet) - so the licenses are less applicable. If you think your data could be used to apply for a patent you should not make it available before fully exploring that possibility. Otherwise it could potentially result in a failed patent application because key information has already been made publicly available.

I hope that made sense, if not, please let me know!

[Lloyd537]

For the majority of data I will generate, I imagine a CC-BY license will be sufficient, as it will be mostly aimed at the scientific community. However, since there is a part of my project where we intend to commercialize the developed technology, I think certain key parts of the data will be patented and not made available.

I won't be using any code in my research, so at least I don't have to think about that!

[EstherPlomp]

Indeed - when a patent is involved you can't make that information available until after the patent application is finalised!

And that is indeed an upside of not working with code :)

[Aleartulon]

For the code I think MIT License would be good (honestly I do not have experience with licensing). For my data it is difficult to say as they are produced by a French research institute and I guess it is something they have to decide.

[EstherPlomp]

Fair enough! Especially if you don't have experience with licenses it will be good to discuss this with collaborators. Especially if they are more senior than you they should have some more experience with this - but that also doesn't mean that they are necessarily experts with this. CC-BY is becoming a bit of the standard in licensing for data, so you could always propose that and see if the collaborators object.

[msafariii]

I prefer using the CC-BY-NC license for my data because I wish to receive attribution for my contributions. Additionally, as a consortium of stakeholders sponsors my project, they're keen on ensuring my work is only used for commercial purposes with their permission.

personaly speaking, I prefer the MIT license for my software, allowing anyone to use it freely while still giving me credit. But, as I see in the software licence page, all of them gives commercial use permission. So, the final decision regarding the licensing might be determined by the consortium.

[EstherPlomp]

That is very fair indeed - your collaborators/consortium may have a lot of final says on these type of things.

Whereas the copy left licenses like GPL indeed do not prohibit commercial reuse, they may still not encourage it if commercial re-users do not want to make their code publicly available. But discouraging it is indeed not the same as prohibiting it! 👍

[FanJ-TUD]

I prefer to use CC-By license for my data. As my research work is meant to be published and cited by others to get exposure. I don't use any code or software in my research, so it's pretty clear.

[EstherPlomp]

Very good point about the exposure indeed!

[pietro-sillano]

My preferred license for my future code will be the MIT License, which allows for any modifications and distributions, as long as I am properly credited. Regarding the dataset, I doubt that it will be used by other people, but if it is, I will publish it under the CC-BY License, which is also quite permissive and guarantees credits.

[EstherPlomp]

Great, thanks for also sharing your license preferences here! 👍

[HuaChenTUDelft]

For simulation software, it is created by my colleague and he uses the MIT license. Thus I stick to his choice for the following updata.
For the experimental data, I would choose CC-BY license to get credits from the following researchers. And also this license allows commercial usage. I would be happy if my research can contribute to the commercialization of the devices.

[EstherPlomp]

Sounds good and indeed the logical choice to follow 👍

[enyasb]

For my data, I think CC BY is most fitting: I want to be credited, but I do not want to inhibit further use of my findings in any way. Following the same logic, I would choose the Apache license for most of my software. If I were to develop a more advanced and elaborate piece of software, I might go for a stronger license like GNU AGPLv3.

[EstherPlomp]

That sounds good and reasonable! Would you apply the same logics to data and then maybe go for a CC BY SA license if you have a more elaborate dataset? Or for data it would still make the most sense to have a less restrictive license?

[RozaliaP]

I agree with most people on the data license CC BY. If I was working with a code, I would prefer MIT to allow free use, modification, and distribution of software source code.

[Upsiton]

I prefer CC BY license for my research data since it is the standard license used in my field. For code, I prefer to use the MIT or Apache license, which depends on the previous license of the code I re-used.

[QingLi-11]

I prefer CC BY license for my data, as it allows for maximum exposure and my I would like my research work to be published and cited
As for software, I prefer GNU LGPLv3. It allows for wide use, and has change notes to ensure traceability.

[EstherPlomp]

Thanks for still sharing! Do note that copyleft licenses such as LGPL can have a potential impact on commercial reuse!