Re: National Land Survey open data licence - version 1.0 - 1 May 2012
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: National Land Survey open data licence - version 1.0 - 1 May 2012
- From: Timo Juhani Lindfors <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:36:30 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Francesco Poli's message of "Fri, 11 May 2012 22:39:33 +0200")
- References: <email@example.com> <1336655243.8135.140661073725377.2C87D0C6@webmail.messagingengine.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
[ Replying to an old thread. For your convenience here's a link to the
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> writes:
>> > * remove the name of the Licensor from the product or service, if
>> > required to do so by the Licensor.
> I am personally convinced that such a requirement is non-free.
> I think it's very similar to one of the clauses found in CC-v3.0
> licenses. See for instance my analysis of CC-by-v3.0:
> However, Debian FTP-masters disagree with me on the freeness of
> works released under the terms of CC-v3.0 licenses:
> Hence, it's *possible* (but not granted) that FTP-masters would consider
> the above-discussed section 2.2 as acceptable, unfortunately.
It seems that since CC has such a clause it is getting copied to other
licenses. I heard of one such license this week:
"Helsinki Region Infoshare – data pool licence
1. The licensor (holder of copyright or associated rights in the
licensed material) hereby grants the licensee (user of the licensed
material under the terms of this licence) a global, free of charge,
non-exclusive, permanent licence to copy, disseminate, edit, combine
and otherwise use the licensed material according to the terms and
conditions set out in items 2 and 3 below. The licensed material may
be used for non-commercial and commercial purposes.
2. The original copyright information in the licensed material must
be acknowledged in the manner indicated by the licensor. This
attribution must be deleted if so requested by the licensor.
3. The copyright details of the licensed material must not be
attributed in any way that suggests that the publisher of the
licensed material endorses the user or the use of the data material."
Note that while CC has "to the extent practicable" to shoften the
requirement this softening is not present anymore in "National Land
Survey open data licence" or this "Helsinki Region Infoshare – data pool
Could this "to the extend practicable" be the key difference why CC
would be considered free but these two new licenses would not?