Discussion Paper on some implications of and comments on the current CLA  for the current OEIS.

The IP issues related to the various components of the OEIS in its current form are complex and interrelated. The components in OEIS are, among others,  the sets of sequence strings, the descriptions, the associated reference materials, remarks, and the software tools including the various templates, database models, modelling tools and search engines. The collection and its associated materials has been assembled for the public good and for the advancement of Science and Mathematics. Associated with these types of components are differing rights, obligations and conventions for use reflecting among other things the differing circumstances in which they are valued such as  in academic, business/commerce, and international contexts. 

The goal of the CLA should be to provide a set of Guidelines in plain english that can easily be translated into other languages that will encourage the use of and contributions to expanding the enumeration of and description of integer sequences.  

In respect of the academic content, value is ascribed by acknowledgment of sources and credit for original contributions given by naming the source of the first mention in the literature with the expectation that all subsequent academic uses will acknowledge the originator by name and date following discipline specific conventions. The other components of the current OEIS facilitate research and applications of and extensions to existing sequences. Not many tools associated with OEIS have the potential to generate new sequences (The Ant Farm application is one example, the Wolfram IDE is another example, together with many of the algorithms in OEIS.) 

It is fairly clear that copyrights and patents are relevant and appropriate forms of IP protection for some elements of the current OEIS but not others. The OEIS differs from traditional encyclopedias in that it is much more than a static and museum-like collection of terms in and descriptions of integer strings. I suggest changing the name of OEIS to better reflect the wide and dynamic range of content and thus enable the separation and  clarification of the many IP issues related to uses, obligations and rights to which a CLA must refer.

I am of the opinion the OEIS could usefully be renamed NSORIS.

Neil Sloane's Online Repository of Integer Sequences.

"Neil Sloane" provides attribution for the origin; 
"Online" identifies the media; 
"Repository" (noun formal) a place where things are stored and can be found.
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/repository);
"Integer Sequences" identifies the content.

Once the change in name is made the Repository contents, tools, techniques and associated materials come under the general categories of expressions of creative works for which contributors and users may have distinguishable rights and to which contributors and users may have distinguishable obligations and constraints.

[If the name and description remain unchanged then the label "encyclopedia" inhibits identification of the various components in the repository because encyclopedia fall outside the scope copyright/patent protection in the US. As such, the users and contributors cannot grant rights or impose constraints or pass on obligations which they do not have, to others. The CLA for OEIS, is its current form, is toothless and without the support of  potentially relevant IP law and practice.]

A few of the components of NSORIS are listed in the notes above and it would be worthwhile reaching a consensus among expert contributors on a structured enumeration of these components.

It seems to me that once the components of NSORIS are identified as to IP type then existing IP Law and practice provides broadly acceptable protections for contributors, users and archivists. The issue of monetising the IP of components of NSORIS  relates to applications of instantiations of NSORIS  tools that can identify and manipulate integer sequences. Here the issue is one of scale of use and return from use. 

Academic contributions of integer sequences and their use carry only the expectation of acknowlegment of the moral right of  authorship and the date of publication as the return for academic use. The right to attribution for integer sequences per se extends to first and all subsequent uses  both of the contributing author's identification and the source, either in NSORIS or elsewhere in the public domain.  It should be made clear that the contributions of integer sequences in a current version of NSORIS are edited versions of original contributions for reasons of any one, or all, of correction, style or convention.  

Assignment of the right to make copies of one or more sequences is sought by publishers on the basis that the publisher will defend and protect the rights of attribution of authors in return for the right to publish an original contribution. There is no problem in a contributor assigning the right to publish Integer Sequences to NSORIS. However, issues arise as to the numbers of subsequent assignments to other publishers that could make sense. If the moral rights of authorship are  preserved and  the goal is to advance the public good by making possible many reprints or mentions in publications then it seems acceptable to allow more than one publisher provided that the rights of  contributors over time are not infringed by alteration of the original. This position protects contributors by ensuring authors and sources are identified while at the same time avoiding issues with publication in nations that do not respect strict copyright.

A set of components associated with NSORIS, excluding integer sequences, could be identified as possibly  attracting  monetised values particularly where the items would be such as to attract an application for a patent for a software tool. The NSORIS user guidelines should make clear that items of this type will be dealt with on a case by case basis with the patent applicant meeting all identified and related NSORIS costs prior to, during and after the applicant progressing the application with the Patent Office. I note that individual contributors to/users of NSORIS cannot meaningfully grant Patents or Patent Rights since that is the duty/domain of the Patent Office.    It is my view that there is unlikely to be any sensible way of gracefully engaging persons in patent discussions in the context of international public good uses of NSORIS components. 

I am of the opinion that the Creative Commons License components are a good mix of protections and mostly match the protection required for the non integer sequence components of NSORIS. 

The broad organisation of NSORIS CLA should cover, under distinct headings, objectives of the CLA, sections for editors, contributors and users on Expections, Rights, Obligations, Limitations and Exclusions. An index and glossary are essential appendices. 

Robert H Barbour DPhil
New Zealand
28/8/2018