One question raised during this week’s meeting is whether we need to add a license to the book.
For example, R for Data Science is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US.
Does anyone have any knowledge about these licenses? Ideas?
what’s wrong with APL? Attribute, but then do whatever we want.
I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. Isn’t APL a license for software? How would it apply to a book? We use the Apache license for all our software, would it make sense to do the same here?
Just a reminder that tomorrow (Feb 12) we have another Book of OHDSI meeting at 11am Eastern Time.
Proposed topics:
-
Review of the CDM chapter draft created by @clairblacketer. (More content might be added between now and the meeting)
-
Licensing (CC, APL, Apache?)
-
Eunomia
@schuemie I don’t know what Eunomia in OHDSI is (though I’m curious! 
). But based on the name alone, I wonder if this document on legal guidelines for facilitating data interoperability and sharing in the service of open science might be relevant: http://www.codata.org/uploads/Legal%20Interoperability%20Principles%20and%20Implementation%20Guidelines_Final2.pdf
Hi @Andrew! I thought it would be funny to be mysterious, but maybe being clear is more helpful 
Eunomia refers to the idea of a standard CDM dataset we can use for exercises and examples.
I’ve made some progress on this idea that I’m excited about and would like to share.
Just a reminder that today (Feb 26) we have another Book of OHDSI meeting at 11am Eastern Time.
Proposed topics:
- Review of the Network Studies chapter by @gregk (Greg: can you upload something for us to review?)
- Licensing (CC, APL, Apache?)
- Exercises
- Revisiting the chapter outline, for example: should we add a chapter on using SQL to query the CDM & Vocab?
I know it is probably a bad idea to break open a standing meeting time, but several folks like @rchen and @Christian_Reich have told me they cannot make the Book of OHDSI meeting because of recurring conflicts in their agenda.
Just throwing two alternatives out there:
- An hour earlier? (Tuesdays 10am-11am Eastern Time)
- Same time on Thursday? (11am-12am Eastern Time)
Let me know if you have objections or preferences
Any chance for Thursday at 10am EST? Unfortunately, similar to other folks, I also have an ongoing meeting clash on both Tuesday and Thursday at 11am EST. If not, I will pick Tue at 10am EST
Ok, we can add Thursdays 10am EST to list of options.
I appreciate the consideration @schuemie! Unfortunately my standing conflict goes includes 10-12 both days, but I hope to be able to join you all starting in the summer!
Since many Korean researchers want me to write a Korean OHDSI book, I’ve started to write the Book of OHDSI, Korean version under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License. You can see the working version of the book, here.
Most contents would be translated from the OHDSI book. Thank you the contribution of Book of OHDSI WG!
Excellent!
With the upcoming face-to-face meeting I hope we can shift the writing of the Book into a higher gear, so there should be more material in the English version soon that you can use.
Question: what is the reasoning behind picking that license? (we still need to pick one for the English book)
@schuemie Recently, a publisher asked me to write a book of medical data analysis or OHDSI. (this doesn’t seem to proceed further, because I started to write online book.) So I didn’t want to use Overt FREE license. And because Hadley Wickham used this license in his book (Advanced R), I used the same license.
Briefly,I didn’t care thoroughly. 
OHDSI may want to consider CC0 for its documentation. Anything else may create unforeseen issues with the ability to update/maintain/re-purpose documentation. In particular by-nc-nd is not great on all three fronts: a) it’s unclear if publishers could make a physical book out of it or even it could be hosted, b) it prevents future initiatives from building/reusing content, and c) the attribution can make incorporating into software harder. Of the three, the attribution requirement is the least worst, but even it is tedious to get right. The thing is, most projects think they need these restrictions… but they don’t. They worry that someone would fork the effort and make a proprietary derivative or make profits from is distribution. However, the cost of the restriction is often not worth covering from what is a rather unlikely event. The more likely, and higher risk is that someone simply won’t adopt the approach.
Thanks @cce! I think the point of the license is to prevent obstacles, not raise them, so to your point CC0 would make most sense if I understand all this correctly.
I was personally thinking of using self-publishing to create a physical copy of the book, which it seems the CC0 license allows for.
The CommonDataModel also appears to use the CC0 license, so we would also be consistent with that.
Reminder: tomorrow (Tuesday June 11) we have another Book Workgroup meeting at 11am Eastern Time.
Proposed topics to discuss:
- Face-to-face meeting summary and next steps
- Setting a deadline for chapter drafts
- Should we create a companion site?
- Where should we list contributors?
- Everyone OK with the CC0 license?
For details how to join see the Book WG Wiki.