[odc-discuss] Database Contents Licence (formerly the FIL)
rochkind at jhu.edu
Thu Apr 30 16:50:25 UTC 2009
And wait, I just realized I had acronym confusion too.
How does the PDDL fit into this all? Has it been superseded by the ODbL
or the DbCL? Or is it an alternate to one, or to both?
So confused. Some people are already (trying) to use the PDDL to license
actual database/data. I think it's likely they are using it
incorrectly. This is very confusing.
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> That helps, thanks Jordan.
> Can you ODbL the database, even if some of the data in the database may
> have third-parties with rights to it in various jurisdictions?
> I think "early adopters" of this suite of stuff for library
> bibliographic data may currently not be using them correctly. Guidance
> is desperately needed.
> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2009, at 16:19, Anders Söderbäck wrote:
>>> Anyway, when licensing library data, I guess you could use both the
>>> ODbL and the DbCL together, just to be safe.
>> I'll try to address your other points when I can, but this one I
>> wanted to clarify immediately.
>> The DbCL is meant to be used only with the ODbL.
>> The ODbL will cover the Database. The DbCL will cover the contents of
>> that database.
>> It's the difference between a text field name (licensed under the ODbL
>> as part of the database) and the text in the field (licensed under the
>> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>> jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com
>> More details at:
>> Open Data at:
>> odc-discuss mailing list
>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
More information about the odc-discuss