The automated changes are in the database. They affect all dataset versions and don’t create a new version.
Nominally, they do not change the semantics, i.e. if you had a CC0 waiver and additional terms, the auto update gives you a custom license who’s terms are CC0 plus your original terms.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dataverse Users Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-commu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataverse-community/e954df84-6e94-422c-a818-9676f7c90cfen%40googlegroups.com.
I’m not sure I understand. The terms displayed should be coming from the database so I’m not sure how you would see them in the db and not in the display. The terms are per version, so if you have more than one version you may need to be checking that you’re looking at the same one in the db and UI. The only other thing I can think of is that some of the fields in the termsofuseandaccess are still allowed when using a license (i.e. the ones that still show on demo.dataverse.org when you edit terms and have a license selected.) Those would be visible in the db but wouldn’t get caught by the upgrade scripts in the release notes (they only check for the fields that appear when you select custom terms).
The release notes do have queries to find all the dataset versions where there is a conflict and then queries to null all relevant termsofuseandaccess fields for the give termsofuseandaccess id(s) you want. I think those should be all that’s needed, but again, I’m not sure I’m following what you’re seeing.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataverse-community/091e5d9c-32ba-4d73-8e29-13a6e29c65een%40googlegroups.com.
Philipp – that’s an interesting example. Your idea of moving that type of info to the Data sources field seems reasonable to me (as someone with no legal training).
For info that is informative but doesn’t affect the license, I think either the Terms fields that remain visible (e.g. like Original Archive, or Data Access Place, if and as appropriate) or metadata fields like Data Sources could be appropriate. Since the fields in the terms tab are fairly specific/constrained by DDI, more freeform info probably fits better in metadata somewhere.
I also see in your example that there’s an interesting twist in that one might be able to use the data commercially if one gets permission from the two sources that restrict that. This seems like a possible alternative license which we can’t easily describe.
Hope that helps,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataverse-community/a20f3be1-7ec6-43fe-ad57-4c100f4d671dn%40googlegroups.com.