Data Domain Licensing Guide
Carolina Schmalzried
DD6300 should be running DDOS 6.0 or newer which is using the new license format ELMS. You should be able to upload the file that was emailed to you to the data domain GUI. I don't believe the legacy 20 digit key is ever used on a DD6300.
Hope you're doing well. Noticed your question regarding licenses. you can hit me directly at brian...@dell.com should you need to. Over the last year the Data Domain appliances have changed from a legacy license code (XYZA-ABCD-ADDF-ADFD-DFDF) (or 20 digit code) to eLMS. The easiest way to find out which one you have is to log into the Data Domain with putty and issue the command "license show all" or "elicense show all" -- that will pretty much give you.
Next... you'll need to use your Serial Number and go to the Licensing.emc.com site and you'll be able to see your entitlements. If you click on Entitlements and then enter your LAC (should have been an email/paper with your system) -- that should list out what you need.
The descriptions and recommendations in this document are relevant to any data publisher or data user, but the recognition of rights, licenses, waivers for data, and what content is considered to be in the public domain may vary depending upon country, state, province, or institution. It is the responsibility of each publisher to consult with local legal counsel for legal opinion in keeping with their home institutions. Data users may also need to seek answers to questions of use with local legal professionals, although we are happy to help in any way possible.
Times have changed. No longer is it necessary for a researcher or scientist to visit a natural history collection in person or to use the phone or parcel post to request and review data that reside within a local database. As the availability of biodiversity data and related content (e.g., imagery and other digital media) from natural history collections continues to grow online and via digital formats, and the ability to share datasets between and among data publishers and users grows easier, many institutions want to be certain that they:
Images, media, and some textual descriptions that are clearly and demonstrably the creative work of the collector or observer, or other individual who created or edited the occurrence record (including, but not limited to, the unique expression of ideas, concepts or beliefs).
Compilations, such as datasets, also can be protected under copyright and licensing, but there are limits to the types of compilations that may be covered. For example, a simple listing of facts in alphabetical, numerical, or other order is not likely to qualify as a compilation that can be protected by copyright. This limitation was tested by the US Supreme Court in the case Feist v. Rural (1991), in which the Court ruled that the Rural Telephone Service Co. could not protect their whitepages because (a) the contents were fact, and therefore, not subject to copyright, and (b) that an alphabetical listing of facts did not demonstrate sufficient creative expression to warrant protection. Other court cases have upheld this via similar rulings, including Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (2003) and Publications International v. Meredith Corp (1996).
In sum, unless there is sufficient and obviously discernible creative expression used to create and organize the compilation, it cannot be protected by copyright. Further, the facts contained within the compilation cannot be protected either.
Copyright places a set of restrictions and limitations on content. Licenses are a means to open up these restrictions and limitations and allow licensees the opportunity to use the content in specific ways as defined by the license type or Terms of Use. The majority of content in datasets published to VertNet, GBIF, or other portals is factual. In addition, the structure of the dataset itself is based on Darwin Core, a community-ratified data sharing standard which is not subject to copyright. As a result the vast majority of the datasets published to biodiversity portals, including nearly all of the content contained within those datasets, are not subject to copyright.
For the few datasets that may contain images, media, or other creative content (e.g., interviews or radio transcriptions, unique descriptive content taken directly from field books), any license used to protect copyright will apply only to the contents that are copyrightable. Thus, once again, all of those facts are still not covered under copyright.
Images, media, and other creative content that can be discovered via hyperlinks within the dataset are not considered to be a part of the dataset and any copyright associated with that creative content remains reserved.
[NOTE: for those of you with images and media held within a dataset, we recommend that you consult your local legal counsel for advice about licensing this content - unless, of course, you want to dedicate it to the public domain.]
We could describe each of these license types for you, but the Creative Commons no longer recommends that you use any of these licenses to protect your datasets intended for scientific research. This is due largely to the fact that the content is not protected, nor is the compilation. Furthermore, these licenses can add unnecessary and unexpected complications for users (See, Desmet, Rees et al., and the Science Commons now integrated into the Creative Commons).
In all cases, all of these licenses, apply only to any (rare) copyrightable content within the dataset or compilation. The rest of content, including the structure of the database or dataset, will be considered to be in the public domain.
There is one other option known as the PDDL, or Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence, created by the Open Knowledge Foundation via the Open Data Commons. The PDDL predates the CC0 and it performs a nearly identical function by waiving all rights and liabilities associated with the data, dataset, and use. Unfortunately, it is not as widely recognized or used as the CC0 around the planet. Thus, the CC0 still makes the most sense, especially for scientific data.
[NOTE: The Open Data Commons provides two different licenses for databases, the ODbL and the ODC-BY. These are some excellent licenses, but they apply only to database frameworks and structures, not to the content within a database. Since we, as a community, use a community-ratified standard for sharing data (Darwin Core), the structure of our datasets or databases is not subject to copyright.]
List any and all copyrights, licenses, and waivers in the Darwin Core field rights. To do this, please provide a web link to the rights or license statement, instead of including the license type itself. For example:
You are welcome to have more than one link in this field, if you find yourself in a circumstance that requires more than one statement of copyright, license, or waiver. We do recognize that licenses and waivers are not rights as defined by Darwin Core, but given the current status of Darwin Core, this is the field in which this data is best presented.
If you have additional terms of use or norms that you require data users to follow, links to these requirements should be posted in the dwc:accessRights field. Some examples of these additional terms of use include the Norms for Data Publication and Use by Canadensys, and adapted by the University of Kansas. VertNet will have a version of these norms available for public use in the near future.
Data - Creative Commons
Why we should publish our data under CC0
CC0
CC0 use for data
Feist v. Rural
Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata
Publications International v. Meredith Corp
Sweat of the Brow Doctrine
Creative Commons
Showing you this map of aggregated bullfrog occurrences would be illegal
Response to GBIF request for consultation on data licenses
Open Knowledge Foundation
Open Data Commons
Darwin Core
Norms for data use and publication
Creative Commons Licenses
Analyzing GBIF data licenses
Attribution Stacking via Creative Commons
Attribution Stacking Example
Prior to this we used NBU to an older model DD. They had a driver to utilize DDBoost. Yes, we are using BoostFS for Windows now on our MA mount paths: CV related documentation: _disk_libraries_frequently_asked_questions.html#can-i-configure-data-domain-boost-dd-boost-on-disk-libraries-using-emc-data-domain
Another advantage with DDBOOST is you can get the Oracle DBAs to do everything themselves. DDBOOST for ORACLE can hook directly into the DDs and Oracle from there they can manage all their own backup and recovery. CV admins taken completely out of the loop.
Then we switched to simple disk devices for auxcopies, using deduplication and compression, and restores were as fast -or as slow - as using Datadomain, but so much cheaper ! Storage used for this purpose was smaller and we stored more.
When using EMC Data Domain with DD Boost, we recommend a default deduplication block size of 512 K B for all data type backups. Also ensure that the block size is set to 512 KB on storage pools used for making copies using an Auxiliary Copy operation.
@Aglidic you can still use it of course but it will take a way a lot of the efficiency results from the Data Domain box because Commvault will be responsible for the biggest portion of the space savings.
Someone else already highlighted the benefits when enabling it on Commvault side, I honestly am always surprised that customers buy these expensive boxes.
While practice varies from discipline to discipline, there is an increasing trend towards the planned release of research data. The need for data licensing arises directly from such releases, so the first question to ask is why research data should be released at all.
A significant number of research funders now require that data produced in the course of the research they fund should be made available for other researchers to discover, examine and build upon. The rationale given by UK funders is that opening up the data allows for new knowledge to be discovered through comparative studies, data mining and so on; it also allows greater scrutiny of how research conclusions have been reached, potentially driving up research quality.[1] Some journals are taking a similar stance, requiring that authors deposit their supporting data either with the journal itself or with a recognised data repository.[2]
ff7609af8f