Skip to content

v0.45.0

Choose a tag to compare

@musharna musharna released this 28 Jul 02:39
37820ee

v0.45.0

Licence answers get more accurate in both directions: a source that grants
everything stops being reported as all-rights-reserved, and a source that states
something we cannot parse stops being reported as silent.

Fixed

  • A stated licence is no longer reported as "not stated". A record whose licence
    could not be parsed returned the same verdict reason as a record with no
    licence at all, while license_raw sat in the same response holding the value
    the message denied existed. The verdict (REVIEW) was right in both cases; the
    explanation pointed callers away from the one lead they had.

    OpenML made the cost concrete — it states licence: 'Public' on every dataset,
    so the answer was "licence not stated" for a source that always states
    something. Unrecognized values now quote themselves, which also surfaces the
    two known drops from the 17-source sweep, other-open (Zenodo) and
    Springer TDM.

    No verdict changed and no licence is promoted: Public stays REVIEW, because
    "publicly available" is not "public domain" and mapping it to CC0 would invent
    a specific grant from a vague word.

Added

  • cellxgene now returns ALLOW instead of REVIEW "all-rights-reserved". CZ
    CELLxGENE Discover publishes every dataset under CC-BY 4.0 as a condition of
    submission, but its curation API exposes no licence field anywhere — verified
    across all 386 published collections and their nested dataset objects — so the
    archive with the clearest blanket grant was among the most pessimistic answers.
    The default applies only where the record itself is silent; a record-stated
    licence still wins.

  • The project is formally citable. CITATION.cff and .zenodo.json ship in the
    repository, so GitHub renders a "Cite this repository" entry and a Zenodo
    deposition can mint a DOI. CI fails the build when the citation version
    disagrees with pyproject.toml.

Changed

  • dataone, omicsdi, omics and biostudies are documented as deliberately having no
    blanket licence, each with the operator's own wording as the reason. The first
    two federate other repositories; the latter two place no ADDITIONAL restrictions
    beyond the original data owner's, and NCBI states outright that it has no rights
    to transfer onward. "No additional restrictions" is not permission, so
    defaulting a licence there would invent a grant the operator declined to make.
    A test pins each absent.