Data Package's licenses is not legally binding?

[roll]

Overview

The package.licenses property - https://datapackage.org/specifications/data-package/#licenses - has the following caution note:

This property is not legally binding and does not guarantee the package is licensed under the terms defined in this property.

I'm just curious is it the same to LICENSE file on Github or to NPM's package.json license?

[pschumm]

I'm not sure what the purpose of that caution is, and I don't think it is very informative (i.e., it doesn't provide the reader information she or he can actually use). My own experience is almost exclusively with data generated for NIH-funded scientific research (i.e., we typically aren't worried about IP or copyright issues unless working on a drug or device), so what we focus on is the Data Use Agreement (DUA), intended primarily to protect the research participants, rather than the more general data license. And in that world, IIUC, the legal enforceability of DUAs has not really been tested. Violating a DUA can get your data access cut off, but more importantly, can interfere with your ability to obtain funding and result in disciplinary action by your institution or employer. Those are typically plenty to keep people from violating DUAs without getting the law involved. I understand that in cases where IP or copyright issues are involved, this may be very different.

IMO, we should be doing everything we can to encourage, rather than discourage, people from including this information in their data packages. After all, that is an important part of making data FAIR; specifically, making them Reusable.

@sapetti9, can we ask Cassandra Woolford for some guidance here?