Hello
Yesterday I made my first contribution to the OpenStreetMap project by
adding a node that describes the shop at Berliner Straße 8 in Frankfurt
am Main, Germany. OpenStreetMap uses the ODBL[1]. Recently I found out
that a free software clone of VOCALOID uses the same licence. However
you could also use the GPL for databases such as soundfonts. Freepats
adds an exception to the GPL[2], wich allows use of the soundfont in
proprietery compositions.
I don't know if one of the licences fits your needs.
Tobias Platen
[1]http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
[2]http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/f/freepats/freepats_20060219-1_copyright
On 03.12.2014 18:04, Michel Roche wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently doing some research about the best way(s) to publish open
data for a local administration. For many of the data they wish/can
publish the license question is quite straightforward, but there's one
database which raises much questions. I try to expose the problem as
simply as possible:
1-the database : shape files with routes and POI about a region.
2-the context : the administration makes some money selling a walking
guide using those informations
3-the aim : opening those data so that eventual reuses will publish
correct information about pathes, dangers, etc.
4-the dilemma : open publishing those information may serve any
competitor editor to build a competiting guide upon those data
5-the question : how licensing could help preventing such an usage while
welcoming more friendly reuses such as : a promotional guide for hiking
in the area that would reuse some of the data for the sake of promotion.
*4b : let's assume that the dilemma is real. I mean : the risk may not
ba as big as their fears, but this is not my point here.
Licences evaluated, and the point where I am :
- Open Licence (https://wiki.data.gouv.fr/images/0/05/Open_Licence.pdf),
or CC-BY : welcomes *every* reuse, so won't solve the dilemma.
- CC-BY-NC : may sound appropriate, but : non free (I'd dislike very
much ending up in recommending a non-free license), would prevent some
legitime reuses (let's imagine that the promotional guide has anything
to do with a commercial use)
- CC-BY-SA : this is the way I'd choose for :
- it's free
- the constraint introduced is only reclaiming openness
- it may solve the dilemma, but can you help me answer following
questions ?
Let's assume the competitor wants to use the shape files under CC-BY-SA
along with a closed base map bought from a vendor to have a nice looking
printed guide.
=> publishing such a reuse of the data seems to lead to a licences
conflict : the closed license would say something like "all rights
reserved, reproduction forbidden", where the CC-BY-SA part would claim
"any reuse of this data will be under this same license"
=> How to solve that ? If it' not solvable, this means that the
commercial reuse cases of the data opened under CC-BY-SA are quite a
complicated way, which I find a reasonable manner to solve the original
dilemma
Am I on the right way with my assumptions and questions ?
Michel Roche
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
