Dear RDA Legal Interoperability IG members, I write to you as a the chair of an RDA task force developing a proposed policy for RDA Outputs and IP. The committee has completed phase one, where we have defined four classes of outputs and their level of RDA “endorsement”. See the draft policy at https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/draft-… Council has reviewed our draft and very much liked the articulation of the 4 types of outputs. Like us, they saw the “RDA Recommendations on Data” as the significant category. Now we turn to IP and we could use your help. Council (rather forcefully) asks if we can’t simply use CC-BY as the default for everything? We think that is appropriate for basic web content and are investigating if we can use that given the current rules that govern the contract that provides the web site. It is a more complicated issue for other types of outputs and that’s where we could use your help. Recommendations on Data are documents in a loose sense of the word. RDA The may include specifications, taxonomies or ontologies, workflows, schemas, data models, etc. We have had some debate in the task force about whether CC-BY is appropriate for these. On one hand, some favor CCZero with some norms as the most flexible and encouraging of interoperability. Some see a need in some cases to assert more control to avoikd the confusion of competing versions—something like a no-derivative works clause. Implementations are services, tools, code, registries, APIs, etc. that demonstrate and make use of RDA DDs and RoDs. We don’t think RDA should formally own these or impose specific licenses, but we would like to make some suggestions and RDA would only promote those implementations that were suitably open. Please share your thoughts and expertise. Not all the interested parties will see a reply to this email, so please comment on the policy directly (you need to be logged in)–https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/draft-…. Thanks, -m.=