Re: Open Database License (ODbL)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:07:49 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL) Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the license. I thank Francesco Poli for this analysis You're welcome, really. and regret that I do not have time just now for a similar level of detail. Believe me, it was not easy for me to find the time, either. I concentrate on the vexing sections 4.3 and 4.6. Good, I appreciate your insight! :-) [...] 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). [...] This clause should be read *carefully*: it seems to be narrow enough to be an acceptable restriction (putting a little notice in Produced Works does not look like a big deal), but I may be missing something important. What do other debian-legal regulars think? I think it acceptably protects integrity of the source and doesn't contaminate other software because it's only the Produced Work which needs to be affected. Which DFSG(s) should I be considering? I was considering all of the DFSG at once. That is to say, no one in a special way. I was under the impression that the clause is an acceptable restriction, but I was not really sure: your opinion seems to confirm that the clause looks fine, hence I think we can move on and concentrate on clause 4.6. Thanks for confirming my sensation. [...] 4.6 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. This clause seems to imply (among other things) that someone who uses a Derivative Database, or even just a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, on a networked server, is compelled to make the whole Derivative Database available to the remote users. [...] Need it be made available over the internet? The final paragraph doesn't seem to specify that the Derivative Database or alteration file must be distributed over the internet if the Produced Work is. It seems to me that you always have to option to make the Derivative Database or alteration file available via physical distribution, even when access to the Produced Work is granted over the internet. Anyway, I think that this clause compels you to set up a distribution mechanism (such as a suitable network server, or else the necessary procedure to send the database via snail mail, or some other physical distribution scheme), when you are just using a Produced Work on a networked box with some remote users. I see this as a non-free restriction, for reasons similar to the objections I have on the GNU AfferoGPL v3. If distributed over the internet, I hope we don't have a commerce restriction problem (DFSG 6) and unresolved questions about access control similar to the AGPLv3, but it does look to me that we do. :-( I think I'm on some ODBL email list. I'm sorry I missed this. I'll raise it on their email list when I get time. Your help would be much appreciated, thanks a lot! In summary, my own personal opinion is that the main troublesome parts of this license are in section 4.6 and *possibly* in section 4.3 (but the latter section is probably OK). Anyway, I would like to restate that, in order to not add to license proliferation, it would have been better, if this new database-specific license had not been written at all. What other licences cover EU database rights? No other license, probably. At least, not one that explicitly covers those rights. But, as I said, I am not really convinced that we need a license that explicitly talks about database rights. Are we sure that we cannot simply license a database under one of the usual well-known good licenses (GPLv2, Expat/MIT, 2- or 3-clause BSD, ...), and just say that the permissions are granted as far as both database rights and copyrights are concerned? If you say that we do need a database-specific license, I trust your word and I will try to ignore my automatic anti-license-proliferation alarm bell... ;-) [...] Hope that helps, It does help, indeed. Thanks. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts
Re: Open Database License (ODbL)
Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL) Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the license. I thank Francesco Poli for this analysis and regret that I do not have time just now for a similar level of detail. I concentrate on the vexing sections 4.3 and 4.6. [...] 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL). DATABASE NAME should be replaced with the name of the Database and a hyperlink to the URI of the Database. Open Database License should contain a hyperlink to the URI of the text of this License. If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI's with the above notice. This clause should be read *carefully*: it seems to be narrow enough to be an acceptable restriction (putting a little notice in Produced Works does not look like a big deal), but I may be missing something important. What do other debian-legal regulars think? I think it acceptably protects integrity of the source and doesn't contaminate other software because it's only the Produced Work which needs to be affected. Which DFSG(s) should I be considering? [...] 4.6 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. This clause seems to imply (among other things) that someone who uses a Derivative Database, or even just a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, on a networked server, is compelled to make the whole Derivative Database available to the remote users. [...] Need it be made available over the internet? The final paragraph doesn't seem to specify that the Derivative Database or alteration file must be distributed over the internet if the Produced Work is. If distributed over the internet, I hope we don't have a commerce restriction problem (DFSG 6) and unresolved questions about access control similar to the AGPLv3, but it does look to me that we do. :-( I think I'm on some ODBL email list. I'm sorry I missed this. I'll raise it on their email list when I get time. In summary, my own personal opinion is that the main troublesome parts of this license are in section 4.6 and *possibly* in section 4.3 (but the latter section is probably OK). Anyway, I would like to restate that, in order to not add to license proliferation, it would have been better, if this new database-specific license had not been written at all. What other licences cover EU database rights? If this is the first, then I think this proliferation is actually the fault of MEPs, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission for creating new rights that are restricted by default, and not the licence authors. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- 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/20100816010749.5e0ccf7...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: Open Database License (ODbL)
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:30:35 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL) Better late than never, what follows is my own personal analysis of the license. My first comment is about the very existence of this license: we should fight license proliferation as much as we can. Another (long and complicated) license is not a good thing to have, hence I am not happy at all to see that people still fail to resist the temptation to write their own brand-new license... :-( I am aware that in some jurisdictions there are special database rights that are not the same thing as copyright, but I am not quite convinced that a database-specific license is really needed. [...] ### 1.0 Definitions of Capitalised Words [...] Produced Work – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. [...] Use – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by copyright or Database Rights whether in the original medium or any other; and includes without limitation distributing, copying, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and preparing derivative works of the Database, as well as modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. [...] ### 3.0 Rights granted 3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the future. So far, the grant of rights seems to meet the DFSG, without any issue. Please note that the verb Use is defined above in a very broad sense. [...] 3.2 Compulsory license schemes. For the avoidance of doubt: a. Non-waivable compulsory license schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; b. Waivable compulsory license schemes. In those jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme can be waived, the Licensor waives the exclusive right to collect such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License; and, c. Voluntary license schemes. The Licensor waives the right to collect royalties, whether individually or, in the event that the Licensor is a member of a collecting society that administers voluntary licensing schemes, via that society, from any exercise by You of the rights granted under this License. This section seems to waive all the rights to collect royalties that can actually be waived, according to applicable laws. It seems to do no harm (it is worth noticing that a very similar clause is found in the Creative Commons Attribution License v3.0). [...] ### 4.0 Conditions of Use [...] 4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: a. Do so only under the terms of this License or another license permitted under Section 4.4; This is a copyleft mechanism. It doesn't look like a strong one, but anyway... Not an issue with the DFSG, but something to bear in mind when assessing compatibility with other licenses, I would say. [...] 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL). DATABASE NAME should be replaced with the name of the Database and a hyperlink to the URI of the Database. Open Database License should contain a hyperlink to the URI of the text of this License. If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI's with the above notice. This clause should be read
Re: Open Database License (ODbL)
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:20:18 -0500 Jeff Epler wrote: Here is a text version of the license in question. http://www.opendatacommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/odbl-10.txt Jeff, thanks for quoting the full text of the license. However, your quote seems to be garbled somehow, at least from section 4.7 to section 6.0 ...:-( What follows is a new attempt to quote the text of the license: this time without alterations, hopefully... ## ODC Open Database License (ODbL) ### Preamble The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Database while maintaining this same freedom for others. Many databases are covered by copyright, and therefore this document licenses these rights. Some jurisdictions, mainly in the European Union, have specific rights that cover databases, and so the ODbL addresses these rights, too. Finally, the ODbL is also an agreement in contract for users of this Database to act in certain ways in return for accessing this Database. Databases can contain a wide variety of types of content (images, audiovisual material, and sounds all in the same database, for example), and so the ODbL only governs the rights over the Database, and not the contents of the Database individually. Licensors should use the ODbL together with another license for the contents, if the contents have a single set of rights that uniformly covers all of the contents. If the contents have multiple sets of different rights, Licensors should describe what rights govern what contents together in the individual record or in some other way that clarifies what rights apply. Sometimes the contents of a database, or the database itself, can be covered by other rights not addressed here (such as private contracts, trade mark over the name, or privacy rights / data protection rights over information in the contents), and so you are advised that you may have to consult other documents or clear other rights before doing activities not covered by this License. -- The Licensor (as defined below) and You (as defined below) agree as follows: ### 1.0 Definitions of Capitalised Words Collective Database – Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Database will not be considered a Derivative Database. Convey – As a verb, means Using the Database, a Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database in any way that enables a Person to make or receive copies of the Database or a Derivative Database. Conveying does not include interaction with a user through a computer network, or creating and Using a Produced Work, where no transfer of a copy of the Database or a Derivative Database occurs. Contents – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as images, audiovisual material, text, or sounds. Database – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License. Database Directive – Means Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended or succeeded. Database Right – Means rights resulting from the Chapter III (sui generis) rights in the Database Directive (as amended and as transposed by member states), which includes the Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents, as well as any similar rights available in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 10.4. Derivative Database – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. Extraction – Means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a Substantial part of the Contents to another medium by any means or in any form. License – Means this license agreement and is both a license of rights such as copyright and Database Rights and an agreement in contract. Licensor – Means the Person that offers the Database under the terms of this License. Person – Means a natural or legal person or a body of persons corporate or incorporate. Produced Work – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. Publicly – means to Persons other than You or under
Open Database License (ODbL)
Hello, I wonder whether the Open Database Licence (ODbL) [1] can be considered as a free license according to the DFSG. This license, designed for open data, aims at being free, in its spirit. [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I do not think it is much used as of today, but the OpenStreetMap (OSM) project, which is a collaborative and free map project of the entire world, is considering to switch from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to the ODbL 1.0 [2]. I do not know if there is some OSM data in Debian, but it is a very important piece of free data, valuable to anyone, so it would be a shame if they switched to a buggy license. [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL Regards, -- Tanguy Ortolo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
