You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given that this field is just a humanly readable information about some properties of the license, it would help a lot to fill it with adequate values when a license is chosen.
onlyMSmembers <- If a metashare specific license is available
academic-nonCommercialUse <- if there is a license which allows for academic non-commercial use
evaluationUse <- if there is a license which allows for evaluation use
commercialUse <- if there is a license which allows for commercial use
attribution <- If all chosen licenses impose attribution
shareAlike <- If all chosen licenses impose shareAlike
noDerivatives<- If all chosen licenses forbid derivatives
noRedistribution <- If all chosen licenses forbid redistribution
etc.
If it is not acceptable to set automatically those fields, at least some suggestions could be given. For sure I believe this would help many LR providers to choose the right license for their resources.
Thanks for taking this suggestion into consideration.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given that this field is just a humanly readable information about some properties of the license, it would help a lot to fill it with adequate values when a license is chosen.
onlyMSmembers <- If a metashare specific license is available
academic-nonCommercialUse <- if there is a license which allows for academic non-commercial use
evaluationUse <- if there is a license which allows for evaluation use
commercialUse <- if there is a license which allows for commercial use
attribution <- If all chosen licenses impose attribution
shareAlike <- If all chosen licenses impose shareAlike
noDerivatives<- If all chosen licenses forbid derivatives
noRedistribution <- If all chosen licenses forbid redistribution
etc.
If it is not acceptable to set automatically those fields, at least some suggestions could be given. For sure I believe this would help many LR providers to choose the right license for their resources.
Thanks for taking this suggestion into consideration.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: