wpoa
what license to add if there is no license in xml, but its whitelisted.
For instance
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2004/860752/abs/
did not come with license information in the xml and so it war marked for deletion
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANew-Family-of-Bluish-Pyranoanthocyanins-40403.fig.002.jpg&diff=126780768&oldid=126640837
For the moment, anything that is not clearly marked in the XML as openly licensed is not to be uploaded (exception: anything PLOS that does not have a license URI is CC BY 2.5 and fine to be uploaded).
We should start keeping track of cases like the above and eventually resolve them using CrossRef data.
OK. I'll put a warning in the script.
Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Daniel Mietchen [email protected] wrote:
For the moment, anything that is not clearly marked in the XML as openly licensed is not to be uploaded (exception: anything PLOS that does not have a license URI is CC BY 2.5 and fine to be uploaded).
We should start keeping track of cases like the above and eventually resolve them using CrossRef data.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/wpoa/OA-signalling/issues/91#issuecomment-46398856.
We have a very elaborate procedure for determining the license in OAMI. Best to copy that as well.
Btw, the whitelist just means that licensing issues are rare, not absent. For some of those whitelisted prefixes (e.g. Royal Society), the majority of the articles is actually not openly licensed, but they usually manage to signal the licensing correctly.