Force people to include licensing terms by including it in the template?

[mrshirts]

We need to enforce having the licensing terms for the article in the article itself. There could be some automatic choices (CC-BY is what we recommend), but also the government no copyright choice, that they can just check off. There will be a few exceptions, but that can just involve a field that can't be empty for now. Something along these lines for CC licenses (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license).

On the left below the GitHub notice seems like a good place.

[davidlmobley]

Do we need the licensing terms IN the article, or is in the github repo adequate? It seems to me the latter would be fine (most readers won't need it in the article I don't think).

[mrshirts]

Do we need the licensing terms IN the article

Those terms then make it clear what can be done with that particular .pdf; in theory, the GitHub repository license might not apply to that particular version of the .pdf.

[HaoZeke]

The pdf must include the terms of the license, however even a markdown badge would do. Technically there is no automatic association between the platform license (the github repo in this case) and the materials distributed (the pdf of the article).

Indeed, the tex template should also include the license, as otherwise it is valid to simply recompile and distribute the compiled pdf.

[davidlmobley]

I like the idea of a CC-BY badge in the PDF if we can work that.

[dwsideriusNIST]

A few quick questions:

1. For CC-BY, you mean this, right? https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/buttons/88x31/png/by.png
2. Are we thinking of a macro for the LaTeX class or just a "put your license here" spot in the template with sample text / graphics?
3. Can we come up with a short list of the expected licenses? There can always be the option of something different, but what if we make things easy by having the usual licenses ready to go.

• CC-BY
• Government "non-license" license

I can work up some examples.

[mrshirts]

Can we come up with a short list of the expected licenses? There can always be the option of something different, but what if we make things easy by having the usual licenses ready to go

I think that these are the ones that will be used; we want to use CC-BY, unless not allowed. I think that we should require them to put SOMETHING there; there must be some license. Note that there's still some pending question on whether CC0 is the correct one to use for government -- search for CC0 on https://github.com/livecomsjournal/livecomsjournal.github.io/blob/master/_author_instructions/01_policies.md -- but for now we can use whatever language was suggested by your legal office.

Are we thinking of a macro for the LaTeX class or just a "put your license here" spot in the template with sample text / graphics?

I was thinking of a macro that had the sample text for the possible choices (Gov, CC-BY, something you put but it has to be something).

For CC-BY, you mean this, right? https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/buttons/88x31/png/by.png

As long as we are sure we are displaying it correctly according to their instructions, yes.

[dwsideriusNIST]

Here are some first attempts at including license information in the "blurb" box of the frontmatter:

CC-BY 3.0 Unported: https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/article_templates/blob/license_macros/templates/CC-BY.pdf

CC-BY 4.0 International: https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/article_templates/blob/license_macros/templates/CC-BY-4INT.pdf

Text used by NIST for the governmental "non-license license" copyright disclaimer:
https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/article_templates/blob/license_macros/templates/govt.pdf

As far as I can tell, NIH does not require its staff to include any sort of disclaimer statement or denial of copyright explicitly in the paper. Does anyone have any insight on NIH's requirements?

[dwsideriusNIST]

Also, more generic US Govt disclaimer that is inspired by the Open Government Data initiative: https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/article_templates/blob/license_macros/templates/govt-PD.pdf

What do you all think of the placement? There is some whitespacing issue, but longer author lists and abstracts would solve that particular issue here.

OR... should the license text be in the document footer or in a section near the end of the paper? I'm open to ideas

[mrshirts]

These look right. There's a whitespace issue, but in MOST cases, the whitespace issue wouldn't pop up. Maybe file it as a potential issue so we remember it's there if it's not totally obvious how to make room for it if the abstract WASN'T very long.

OR... should the license text be in the document footer or in a section near the end of the paper? I'm open to ideas

I think this looks good.

[dwsideriusNIST]

After doing some additional trials, I think the whitespace issue is going to be a problem in more cases than we would hope. E.g., https://github.com/dmzuckerman/Sampling-Uncertainty/blob/license_macro/main.pdf, page 1. I added the US Govt open-data-initiative style disclaimer, but I think the aesthetic appearance would be really terrible if whitespace were added to allow the entire disclaimer in the 'blurb' area.

Another option is to put the license information in a separate section toward the end of the paper: https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/article_templates/blob/license_macros/templates/govt-PD.pdf, page 7. Please ignore the dithered CC0 badge; I need to convert the SVG graphic into something LaTeX friendly.

[mrshirts]

Leaving it on the front is useful. Some options are narrowing the right hand panel, narrowing the margins between the right and left hand panel, and moving the right hand panel (with github repository/license information) up the page.

[dwsideriusNIST]

Here is a second attempt at adjusting the "blurb" location: https://github.com/dmzuckerman/Sampling-Uncertainty/blob/license_macro/main.pdf

I need to test the class file with a few other papers to see if the positioning is consistent.

[dwsideriusNIST]

I had to work on the vertical alignment a bit more and have zeroed in on a compromise.

See, for example:
https://github.com/dmzuckerman/Sampling-Uncertainty/blob/license_macro/main.pdf
https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/TransportCheckList/blob/license_macro/TransportChecklist.pdf
https://github.com/dwsideriusNIST/gmx_tutorials_livecoms/blob/license_macro/gmx_tutorials.pdf

The blurb+license+date block in the left column is (more or less) centered vertically relative to the box containing the title+author info+abstract+metadata.

How is this as a compromise alignment? It's not greatly different from the previous alignment (which was closer to the abstract position).

[mrshirts]

I think that looks great. @davidlmobley, @dmzuckerman, any thoughts?

[mrshirts]

Also, we want to make sure that the license text appears in human readable form in the .tex itself, since that can be copied - it might be enough to haver what appears in the pdf. or maybe there's some extra suggested verbiage that can be included in comments in the repository.