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? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp1ftf0EY_Pz.pgp
Description: PGP signature