[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



Reply to: