dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq [2021/10/02 13:07] nick |
dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq [2021/11/08 16:20] (current) nick ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Licenses Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ====== | ====== Licenses Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) ====== | ||
| + | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:start| return to the Open Data Common Resources and Tools ]] | ||
| ===== General ===== | ===== General ===== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | : //This is issue is only relevant to the ODbL (for all other licenses there is nothing to ‘upgrade’). For the ODbL the answer is yes — subject to some caveats. Similar to the Creative Commons’ share-alike licenses the ODbL has a clause that allows derivative works to be licensed under either a) that ODbL version b) later versions of the ODbL c) a compatible license (any compatible license would, for example, have to contain similar sharealike provisions if it were to be compatible). The intention here is to provide some flexibility to those producing derivative works in the future while ensuring that the key elements of any share-alike provisions are preserved.//(( | + | : //This is issue is only relevant to the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] (for all other [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license | Licenses]] there is nothing to ‘upgrade’). For the ODbL the answer is yes — subject to some caveats. Similar to the Creative Commons’ share-alike licenses the ODbL has a clause that allows derivative works to be licensed under either a) that ODbL version b) later versions of the ODbL c) a compatible license (any compatible license would, for example, have to contain similar sharealike provisions if it were to be compatible). The intention here is to provide some flexibility to those producing derivative works in the future while ensuring that the key elements of any share-alike provisions are preserved.//(( |
| Open Data Commons: Legal Tools for Open Data, | Open Data Commons: Legal Tools for Open Data, | ||
| __Licenses FAQ__, | __Licenses FAQ__, | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | : //The simplest answer is because they may have separate rights. For example, consider a database of photographs. Here there are the rights in the database and quite separate individual copyrights in the photographs. Or consider the example of Freebase which contains textual material and images from Wikipedia as well as user contributed material. While Freebase controls the database the individual items of contents need to have their own separate license.// | + | : //The simplest answer is because they may have separate rights. For example, consider a database of photographs. Here there are the rights in the database and quite separate individual copyrights in the photographs. Or consider the example of Freebase which contains textual material and images from Wikipedia as well as user contributed material. While Freebase controls the database the individual items of contents need to have their own separate [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license]].// |
| - | : //Of course much of the time the the Licensor of the database is also in the position to license the rights (if any) in the contents — the classic example would be a database containing factual data. For this reason we’ve created a very simple Database Contents License which you can use in conjunction with the ODbL to ensure that you’ve licensed everything.// | + | : //Of course much of the time the the Licensor of the database is also in the position to license the rights (if any) in the contents — the classic example would be a database containing factual data. For this reason we’ve created a very simple Database Contents License which you can use in conjunction with the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] to ensure that you’ve licensed everything.// |
| : //To summarise:// | : //To summarise:// | ||
| - //For a homogeneous DB (No need to distinguish “Database” + “Contents” because you control rights in both or no independent rights in the “Contents”)// | - //For a homogeneous DB (No need to distinguish “Database” + “Contents” because you control rights in both or no independent rights in the “Contents”)// | ||
| * //For Share-Alike: Use Open Database License (ODbL) + Database Contents License (DbCL) (or some other suitable contents license of your choosing)// | * //For Share-Alike: Use Open Database License (ODbL) + Database Contents License (DbCL) (or some other suitable contents license of your choosing)// | ||
| - | * //For Public domain: Use Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) (it covers both “Database” and “Contents”)// | + | * //For Public domain: Use [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odpddl]] (it covers both “Database” and “Contents”)// |
| - //For non-homogenous DB (need to distinguish “Database and Contents”):// | - //For non-homogenous DB (need to distinguish “Database and Contents”):// | ||
| * //Share-alike: use ODbL for Database qua Database + whatever license you want/can for Contents// | * //Share-alike: use ODbL for Database qua Database + whatever license you want/can for Contents// | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | : //Different types of subject matter (e.g. code, content or data) necessitate differences in licensing. Licenses designed for one type of subject matter — as CC licenses were designed for content, and F/OSS licenses for code — aren’t always best suited to licensing another type of subject matter.// | + | : //Different types of subject matter (e.g. code, content or data) necessitate differences in licensing. [[[[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license | Licenses]] designed for one type of subject matter — as CC licenses were designed for content, and F/OSS licenses for code — aren’t always best suited to licensing another type of subject matter.// |
| : //The Creative Commons licenses themselves illustrate this point as they were created at a time when there were already a variety of free/open-source software licences available that could, in theory, have been applied to “content” (e.g. text/images/films). However, it was felt that content was different enough from code to warrant a new set of licenses which took account of these differences (even though code shares most of the same IP rights, notably copyright, with “content”).// | : //The Creative Commons licenses themselves illustrate this point as they were created at a time when there were already a variety of free/open-source software licences available that could, in theory, have been applied to “content” (e.g. text/images/films). However, it was felt that content was different enough from code to warrant a new set of licenses which took account of these differences (even though code shares most of the same IP rights, notably copyright, with “content”).// | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | ==== Are Share-Alike provisions such as those in the ODbL enforceable in all jurisdictions? ==== | + | ==== Are Share-Alike provisions such as those in the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] enforceable in all jurisdictions? ==== |
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | : //**Summary:** The ODbL and its Share-Alike provisions will apply in a good number of jurisdictions (either via “rights” or contract). Where there is any uncertainty about the existence of “rights” or a contract no other licenses can do any better and at worst the license becomes a very clear statement of your “community norms”.// | + | : //**Summary:** The [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] and its Share-Alike provisions will apply in a good number of jurisdictions (either via “rights” or contract). Where there is any uncertainty about the existence of “rights” or a contract no other [[[[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license | Licenses]] can do any better and at worst the license becomes a very clear statement of your “community norms”.// |
| : //**Details:** This is a license for data and databases, as such you the licensor must be aware that any conditions you impose, such as Share-Alike, depend on:// | : //**Details:** This is a license for data and databases, as such you the licensor must be aware that any conditions you impose, such as Share-Alike, depend on:// | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| : //The simple answer is: **no**.// | : //The simple answer is: **no**.// | ||
| - | : //**As a User of ODbL licensed material:** in order to have total legal certainty all you need to do is comply with the terms of the ODbL (in particular the share-alike requirement).// | + | : //**As a User of [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] licensed material:** in order to have total legal certainty all you need to do is comply with the terms of the ODbL (in particular the share-alike requirement).// |
| - | : //**As a Licensor using the ODbL for your own material:** as explained in the previous FAQ it is possible that in some jurisdictions there will be uncertainty as to whether there are sufficient underlying “rights” for the ODbL (or any other license) to have effect. However:// | + | : //**As a Licensor using the ODbL for your own material:** as explained in the previous FAQ it is possible that in some jurisdictions there will be uncertainty as to whether there are sufficient underlying “rights” for the ODbL (or any other [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license]]) to have effect. However:// |
| * //The ODbL will apply in many jurisdictions (either via “rights” or contract).// | * //The ODbL will apply in many jurisdictions (either via “rights” or contract).// | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | //The ODbL talks about ‘substantial’ part of the contents in relation to ‘Extraction’ and ‘Reutilisation’. This terminology derives from the Database directive and determining what exactly substantial means is ultimately up to the courts.// | + | //The [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]] talks about ‘substantial’ part of the contents in relation to ‘Extraction’ and ‘Reutilisation’. This terminology derives from the Database directive and determining what exactly substantial means is ultimately up to the courts.// |
| //A community could draft its own guidelines if it wished and these would likely exercise a strong influence on most users (after all most compliance is driven by the community not by the courts). However, it would be important to realise that the exact interpretation would remain with the courts.//(( | //A community could draft its own guidelines if it wished and these would likely exercise a strong influence on most users (after all most compliance is driven by the community not by the courts). However, it would be important to realise that the exact interpretation would remain with the courts.//(( | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | //Often in commercial agreements (contracts or licenses or both) it is a good idea to put clauses such as choice of law (what law applies) and choice of jurisdiction (the forum agreed to by the parties) into the agreement. As a side note, agreements also often specify mediation or arbitration as a way to resolve disputes among the parties (though this varies in enforceability).// | + | //Often in commercial agreements (contracts or [[[[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:l:license | licenses]] or both) it is a good idea to put clauses such as choice of law (what law applies) and choice of jurisdiction (the forum agreed to by the parties) into the agreement. As a side note, agreements also often specify mediation or arbitration as a way to resolve disputes among the parties (though this varies in enforceability).// |
| - | //The difficulty in applying these clauses to open licenses, and specifically to the ODbL, lies in that the scope of the ODbL is global and may involve parties anywhere in the world in a wide variety of uses. So in effect there is a conflict between a “Public Licence”, which is meant to be somewhat generic and apply to a wide audience (and thereby create a broader community of users) and what may be desirable or enforceable for one specific project with one specific type of database.// | + | //The difficulty in applying these clauses to open licenses, and specifically to the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odbl]], lies in that the scope of the ODbL is global and may involve parties anywhere in the world in a wide variety of uses. So in effect there is a conflict between a “Public Licence”, which is meant to be somewhat generic and apply to a wide audience (and thereby create a broader community of users) and what may be desirable or enforceable for one specific project with one specific type of database.// |
| //The ODbL allows for the choice of law to be where the licence is being enforced – the place where the court dealing with the case sits – rather than specifying a certain choice of law and making, for example, a Vietnamese database provider and an Egyptian user settle disputes under Scottish law. Making them actually travel to Scotland to settle these disputes would be unfair (and potentially unenforceable), which is why there is no choice of venue clause.// | //The ODbL allows for the choice of law to be where the licence is being enforced – the place where the court dealing with the case sits – rather than specifying a certain choice of law and making, for example, a Vietnamese database provider and an Egyptian user settle disputes under Scottish law. Making them actually travel to Scotland to settle these disputes would be unfair (and potentially unenforceable), which is why there is no choice of venue clause.// | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| - | ==== The Science Commons Protocol mentions “unfair competition” and I don’t see this in the PDDL. What is it and how is it addressed in the PDDL? ==== | + | ==== The Science Commons Protocol mentions “unfair competition” and I don’t see this in the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odpddl]]. What is it and how is it addressed in the PDDL? ==== |
| [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:tools:lic_faq | Return to Top]] | ||
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
| * //Trade secrets;// | * //Trade secrets;// | ||
| * //Publicity rights;// | * //Publicity rights;// | ||
| - | * //Trade mark claims;// | + | * //[[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:t:trademark]] claims;// |
| - | * //Passing off (which is a lot like trade mark);// | + | * //Passing off (which is a lot like [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.a_glossary:t:trademark]]);// |
| * //Deceptive advertising;// | * //Deceptive advertising;// | ||
| * //Other kinds of unfair methods of competition// | * //Other kinds of unfair methods of competition// | ||
| - | //As you can imagine, the areas outlined above have a variety of different elements. One common theme that could be said about many of these areas is that they involve using some aspect of a business without permission. And permission to use the data is, after all, what is granted in the PDDL.// | + | //As you can imagine, the areas outlined above have a variety of different elements. One common theme that could be said about many of these areas is that they involve using some aspect of a business without permission. And permission to use the data is, after all, what is granted in the [[dido:public:ra:xapend:xapend.b_stds:defact:odc:lic:odpddl]].// |
| //Take trade secrets for example. The law protects secret information. If you use the Public Domain Dedication & Licence and make your data available via the internet, it can’t be a secret any more because you’ve let everyone see it. So there isn’t a need to address this in the licence.// | //Take trade secrets for example. The law protects secret information. If you use the Public Domain Dedication & Licence and make your data available via the internet, it can’t be a secret any more because you’ve let everyone see it. So there isn’t a need to address this in the licence.// | ||
dido/public/ra/xapend/xapend.b_stds/defact/odc/tools/lic_faq.1633194430.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/10/02 13:07 by nick
