A question about open databases license

Tobias Platen tobias at platen-software.de
Wed Dec 3 20:14:59 UTC 2014


Hello

Yesterday I made my first contribution to the OpenStreetMap project by 
adding a node that describes the shop at Berliner Stra├če 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
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion




More information about the Discussion mailing list