Re: ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Dear Charles, On Sep 22, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Nick Oosterhof a écrit : are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License (DbCL) DSFG [2] compliant? [...] I found an earlier thread [3] where it was argued that section 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume with DSFG 1) [section 4.6 requires that using the database and distributing the results requires making the database or 'patch' files available for non-profit costs ] which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. Is that a reasonable interpretation? in case of use for profit, the section 4.6 requires that the customer can access to what the DFSG call source code or patch files, with no unreasonable additional cost. It therefore does not restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant cost. Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand this better now: a customer who pays for the database has to have access to the database can decide for theirselves whether to sell the database to others. This is similar to the requirements for conveying non-source forms in the GPL and the AGPL, which are accepted as Free by Debian. Ok, that makes sense. I have not studied the other clauses of the ODbL, but section 4.6 therefore does not seem to make it non-free. Great, thanks for your help in clarifying this. best, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/40331d36-2059-4387-a85a-f5465e460...@gmail.com
Re: ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Le Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Nick Oosterhof a écrit : are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License (DbCL) DSFG [2] compliant? It seems they are not, but I would like to make sure. Specifically I found an earlier thread [3] where it was argued that section 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume with DSFG 1), as this section reads: Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet. which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Dear Nick, in case of use for profit, the section 4.6 requires that the customer can access to what the DFSG call source code or patch files, with no unreasonable additional cost. It therefore does not restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant cost. This is similar to the requirements for conveying non-source forms in the GPL and the AGPL, which are accepted as Free by Debian. I have not studied the other clauses of the ODbL, but section 4.6 therefore does not seem to make it non-free. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130922094910.ga1...@falafel.plessy.net
ODbL / DbCL licenses: not DFSG compliant?
Greetings, are the Open Database License (ODbL) [1] and Database Contents License (DbCL) DSFG [2] compliant? It seems they are not, but I would like to make sure. Specifically I found an earlier thread [3] where it was argued that section 4.6 of the ODbL [1] makes it non-compliant (I presume with DSFG 1), as this section reads: Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet. which would restrict people from selling a Derivative Database or Produced Work for significant (higher than reasonable production) cost. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Thanks for your consideration, Nick [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00036.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e94b47d0-2928-44f4-a9d8-0366ba9ee...@gmail.com
