Where in B4 Example — Service Metadata does it describe who needs to be attributed?

[nmtoken]

In the example we have

license:
name: CC-BY 4.0 license
url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I see looking at https://spec.openapis.org/oas/latest.html#license-object-example that a fuller response might be:

license:
name: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
identifier: CC-BY-4.0
url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

But I can't work out from the example how a user of the service would know who to attribute (i.e. give appropriate credit) as is required by the licence

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

[jerstlouis]

Thanks @nmtoken .

This is probably more an issue for OGC API - Common - Part 1: Core

https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-072/19-072.html#_56682cbf-76dc-4c75-a266-a58186d638aa

But are you referring to the attribution for the API definition, or for the dataset that it distributes?

Here I believe this information refers to the API definition.

We have the attribution field in individual collection descriptions for the attribution, and I imagine this field could also be present in the landing page response for dataset-wide attribution.

However, this is intended for a field that is kept short enough to display by client at the bottom of a map visualization.

[nmtoken]

Oops, yes you are right @jerstlouis I was reading https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-072/19-072.html#rc_core following the link from @ghobona recent email to the ogcapi-coverages list; and just posted the issue here.

I guess it's moot now for coverages especially, but if a licence applies to a service, (as per the strapline This is an example of how to extend the OpenAPI info object to include identifying metadata about both the service and the service provider. then I mean the service and not the data. Obviously, a dataset will also have a licence that may need some attribution, so it applies in both situations.

[jerstlouis]

I think a license / attribution does not apply to a service (though usage rights / terms of service might apply, and they might include a reference to a license and require attributing data retrieved from the service), but the license in the openAPI definition / service metadata I believe refers to the license for the API definition.

[nmtoken]

INSPIRE regulations have licences being applicable to services as well as the datasets they give access to; but even taking your view that the license in the openAPI definition / service metadata refers to the license for the API definition, isn't there still a requirement for attribution, to say the Open Geospatial Consortium?

[jerstlouis]

@nmtoken If the API definition is based on the building blocks provided by OGC, then yes I assume the API license attribution should be to the OGC.

However, the implementation / deployment might have drafted their own version of the API definition, or modified it heavily, and in this case it is less clear what the requirement for attribution is. Possibly the attribution should be to the deploying organization and/or the implementation as well as the OGC in that case?

Was that what the essence of the original question? If so, that might be a question for @ogcscotts .

[nmtoken]

It is the general essence of the question. The licence information currently shows type of licence, but not actually the licence.

[ghobona]

The OpenAPI Specification v3.0 defines the license field as "The license information for the exposed API."

https://swagger.io/specification/v3/

[nmtoken]

@ghobona Not sure if you are agreeing with me on not?

I suppose it depends on what your interpretation of licence information is.

At the moment the License Object Example in https://swagger.io/specification/v3/ is showing (what I am calling type of licence):

{
  "name": "Apache 2.0",
  "url": "https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"
}

but if you go to: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html you see:

To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work, attach the following boilerplate declaration, replacing the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) Enclose the text in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that you include a file or class name and description of purpose on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives.

Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

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.

My general question is where in the API can you access the bit that goes in the square brackets; other licence types may have other fields or information that need to be included...

[ghobona]

@nmtoken My interpretation is that the License object would need to reference a copy of the license that provides the necessary information (i.e. copyright year, name of copyright owner etc).

I also note that OGC API - Common - Part 2 mentions the license link relation. A detailed example of its use is in OGC API - Features - Part 1. So that would provide a way to reference the license at a resource level.

[joanma747]

There is also a link type "license" that can be useful as a solution for the API (landing page) or for a collection.

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml