Support #3785

Proper documentation of Open Data license

Added by Martin Tuchyna 7 months ago. Updated 18 days ago.

Status:ResolvedStart date:09 Dec 2019
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Marco Minghini% Done:


Target version:-
Submitting Organisation: Knowledge-Base relevant?:No
Proactive:No Keyword #1:
Country:SK - Slovakia Keyword #2:
Originating UI: Keyword #3:


Dear colleagues, 

we would like to ask for an advice, where it would be the most appropriate to documen the Open Data license, in order to ensure, the metadata will be correctly processed on EC Geoportal, when filtering the Open Data.

As we have indicated in the relevant communicationn, we would like to use the following two licences for that purpose:


For time being, we have tried to implement it via:

1. Conditions for an access and use:


2. Legal constraints

Thanks in advance for your guidance, here.


Best regards, Martin 


#1 Updated by Martin Tuchyna 6 months ago

Dear colleagues,

may we ask you to provide us with the feedback on this topic, as we need to update the metadata in wider context and would like to avoid the multiply changes of the CC licences encoding.

In addition to that, could you please provide us with the guidance, reference template, example, how to document for the CC-BY 4.0 attribution, as we could not find anything relevant on the CC website.

Best wishes,


#2 Updated by Marco Minghini about 1 month ago

  • Assignee set to Marco Minghini
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Dear Martin,

as you can see in the thread with Member States representatives (, many different strategies are used to document open data.

In general, there is no 'correct' or 'wrong' answer to your question, but our recommendation would be to encode the license of datasets according to Requirement C.18 on 'conditions for access and use'; this is also supported by the following Recommendation C.10 which includes an example of a CC BY license.

As a reference example, in the thread with Member States representatives, you can have a look at the encoding from Norway, which is aligned with C.18 (they also use an extra occurrence of gmd:RestrictionCode with codelist value "license", which is not mandatory).

Finally, we remember that you wanted to start/lead a discussion on this topic during the last virtual MIG-T meeting in March, but there was no time for that. Feel free to propose and lead a discussion on this topic again for the next MIG-T meeting on July 2.

Best regards,

The JRC Geoportal Team

#3 Updated by Daniele Francioli about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved

#4 Updated by Martin Tuchyna 20 days ago

Dear Daniele,

thank you for your feedback here.

For the Norwegian example, could you please share the link for the particular metadata record to see their encoding as I could not find anything on this page:

Thanks in advance,

Best regards,


#5 Updated by Marco Minghini 18 days ago

Dear Martin,

the page I shared with you was this one: , where you can access the examples from all the countries which replied to our request.

As I said, Norway adds some extra information which is not strictly needed, so my suggestion is to look at that example together with the content of Requirement C.18 and Recommendation C.10 from the MD TG v.2.0. Based on this, encoding the license information in your metadata should be a straightforward task.

Best regards,

Marco - on behalf of the Geoportal Team

Also available in: Atom PDF