ABSTRACT The RDP was created to systematically describe the current data licensing landscape from the perspective of data aggregation, reuse, and redistribution of publicly funded biological & biomedical data resources. We hope to engage the scientific community in discussion regarding the legal use and reuse of scientific data. EXAMPLE SCORES IMPLICATIONS SCORE OVERVIEW RUBRIC AT A GLANCE LICENSE HETEROGENEITY Evaluating scientific data licensing with the (Re)usable Data Project Technical, logistical, and legal barriers impede data reusability and interoperability, and are significant burden and expense. Being unable to integrate and redistribute our collective data resources blocks innovation and development of life-improving diagnostic & drug selection tools. Most seemingly “open data” does not provide legal permissions for reuse and redistribution. 5 star 3 out of 5 stars 56 sources 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 0 star 18% 21% 20% 18% 18% 5% custom unlicensed all rights reserved inconsistent GPL-3.0 MIT CC-BY-4.0 CC-BY-NC-4.0 CC-BY-ND-3.0 CC-BY-SA-3.0 CC-BY-SA-4.0 CC0-1.0 ODbL-1.0 public domain 22 5 3 5 1 1 8 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 permissive restrictive copyright unknown copyleft private pool 22 16 8 5 4 1 Public, discoverable, & standard • Is the license easily findable? • Is there one, unambiguous license? • Is the license standard? ? ? ? ? ?? To help biomedical research & research support communities understand & navigate the data licensing landscape, we created a rubric to determine the reusability of data resources and have applied it to 56 scientific data resources (e.g. databases) to date. Few restrictions on kind of reuse • Are all types of reuse (copying, editing, building upon, remixing, distributing) allowable? Easily accessible data • Is all data covered by the license? • Is the data in a reasonable place? • Is the data easily accessible in bulk? Complete scope • Are terms of reuse clearly defined without need for negotiation with data creators/curators? • Is the data easily accessible in bulk? Few restrictions on who can reuse • Can any type of user group reuse the data? 22 permissive 16 permissive 8 copyright 5 unknown 4 copyleft 1 private pool 22 custom 5 incon- sistent 5 unlicensed 3 all rights reserved 1 1 8 1 3 11 3 1 1 Non-permissive licenses are the largest group License landscape is very diverse ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & INFO @monarchinit info@monarchinitiative.org See the full rubric at: http://reusabledata.org See the preprint at: https://doi.org/10.1101/282830 Community contributions welcome! https://github.com/reusabledata/reusabledata This heterogeneity and restrictiveness severely complicates the ability to combine & reuse data. Highly reusable data sources This work is supported by NIH Grants OT3TR002019, U24TR002306, R24OD011883, and the U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We would like to thank Arvin Paranjpe, Senior Technology Development Manager, OHSU, for his thoughtful discussion. SCORING BY CATEGORY 0 10 20 30 40 50 Have a violation Unknown No violations Clearly stated Accessible Comprehensive & non-negotiated Avoids restrictions on kinds of (re) use Avoids restrictions on who may (re) use 1. Oregon Clinical & Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA 2. Berkeley Bioinformatics Open-source Projects, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 3. OHSU Library, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA 4. Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA 5. Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA Nicole Vasilevsky 1, Seth Carbon 2, Robin Champieux 3, Julie A. McMurry 1,5, Lilly Winfree, Letisha R. Wyatt 4, Melissa A. Haendel 1,5 No license is found, but data is accessible. The license is clearly stated & standard, & has clear data access, but has terms that greatly limit reuse & redistribution. The license is custom, does not apply to all the data,