[odc-discuss] Database Contents Licence (formerly the FIL)
Jonathan Rochkind
rochkind at jhu.edu
Thu Apr 30 21:27:53 UTC 2009
Huh, I know you can't give me legal advance, but you think it's
potentially reasonable to use CC-BY to cover "database rights", if not
"data rights"? I had been thinking that CC-BY was equally inapplicable
to 'data rights' or 'database rights'. But I guess I may not have been
thinking clearly.
So the preamble to PDDL suggests that it's NOT applicable to
hetereogenous databases? Or just that you can't apply it to the ENTIRE
database if it's hetereogenous?
So if I have a hetereogenous database, and want to release the 'database
rights' under as broad legal use as possibe (up to public domain
dedication, if possible), and I want to release the subset of the
hetereogenous data that DOES 'belong' to me under as generous rights as
possible (again including public domain) -- how do I do this? Can I use
the PDDL, if I'm very clear about what data in the db is covered by the
PDDL and what isn't? And I can I still use the PDDL for the "database
rights" of the aggregate database? Or do I have to use something else to
either license or public-domain-release the "database rights" of a
hetereogenous db?
What's the best way to do this to cover as many jurisdictions as
possible? Or is this hetereogenous database case not one that ODC is
currently trying to address?
Thanks for the clarification, it's been extremely helpful.
Jonathan
Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2009, at 18:58, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
>
>> Okay, phew, that does help a lot. Sorry I got confused between the
>> 'public domain' and 'some rights reserved' options. We need a web
>> page laying this out (or maybe one already exists I forgot about).
>>
>> So with "some rights reserved", you have one license for database,
>> and one license for data, right?
>>
>>
> With our approach in the ODbL, yes, with the caveat of the contents
> (the data) being homogenous in their rights (so that only once licence
> is needed).
>
>
>> But with public domain dedication, the same license can be used for
>> a database or for data?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> In fact this is directly addressed in the PDDL preamble:
>
> "This document can cover either or both of the database and its
> contents (the data). Because databases can have a wide variety of
> content – not just factual data – rightsholders should use the Open
> Data Commons – Public Domain Dedication & Licence for an entire
> database and its contents only if everything can be placed under the
> terms of this document. Because even factual data can sometimes have
> intellectual property rights, rightsholders should use this licence to
> cover both the database and its factual data when making material
> available under this document; even if it is likely that the data
> would not be covered by copyright or database rights."
>
>
>> If you have a database that may include _some_ data that you do own
>> (if anyone does; it may be non-ownable of course), and _some_ data
>> that someone else owns (or could own if it's ownable) ... then as
>> long as you can clearly tell which data is which, you could use the
>> PDDL to dedicate just the _data_ you own from that db, right? Like
>> you could advertise that all data that has a field X in the db set
>> to Y has been dedicated under the PDDL, but other data in the
>> database has not been.
>>
>
> Yes. Using the PDDL or CC0 or whatever doesn't somehow skip you out
> on the key issue that if you don't own something you can't give it
> away. See Freebase's licensing page for example of one site's approach
> with dealing with multiple licensed content using CC-BY for the
> database:
>
> <http://www.freebase.com/signin/licensing>
>
>
>> In that case... what about the 'database'. Could you use the PDDL to
>> dedicate a _database_ that you created, which contains some records
>> you know someone else owns? What would that mean? I don't really
>> understand the difference between legal rights in a 'database' and
>> in 'data' (perhaps because the little law I know is US law, where
>> there isn't much rights in either).
>>
>
> I think it is important to clarify (as you've mentioned this before)
> that databases aren't somehow exempt from copyright in the United
> States. Selection and arrangement can be worthy of copyright - so
> databases can have copyright if their selection and arrangement meets
> the standards of copyright by being "original" enough. Feist says that
> taking telephone data (factual data) and arranging it in alphabetical
> order (as you normally would in a phone book) is not "original" enough
> to be worthy of copyright.
>
> A really simple example of a copyright for selection and arrangement
> is a mix tape. Putting together a mix tape can mean a copyright for
> the mix tape creator for their selection and arrangement of songs, but
> that doesn't mean that they have a copyright over the songs they
> selected and arranged.
>
> Help for making the Contents/Database distinction as well as several
> of the other issues is built into the licences. See for example, 2.2
> in the ODbL RC
>
> "Copyright law varies between jurisdictions, but is likely to cover:
> the Database model or schema, which is the structure, arrangement, and
> organisation of the Database, and can also include the Database tables
> and table indexes; the data entry and output sheets; and the Field
> names of Contents stored in the Database;"
>
> Here is some background I've produced:
>
> =Background of why we have the DbCL/FIL
>
> The idea of the separate "Contents" licence is to cover any
> copyrightable material held within the database. The ODbL works by
> concentrating on the database as a whole and not the actual contents
> (the data) within the database. This is so it can work, for example,
> with projects like Freebase that use both GFDL and other licensed
> content within the database. It's also so that the ODbL could be
> applied to a much simpler use case, such as a database of Flickr
> images with different licences (CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, for example).
>
> The problem then becomes for databases consisting of primarily factual
> information (what we commonly think of as data), there may be some
> copyrightable content. Think of a database with lots of facts about
> the weather that also contains a text field with the field name "daily
> comment", where a weather researcher writes a one sentence line about
> the weather that day.
>
> The field name is part of the ODbL, the text in that field is not.
>
> The text in the field potentially has copyright. The factual data held
> in the rest of the database (all of the other "Contents") will not
> have copyright.
>
> When making use of the weather database, under the ODbL, you will also
> be copying, distributing, etc the potentially copyrightable text in
> the text field (the weather researcher's daily weather line). So the
> issue becomes making sure those rights are granted as well.
>
> The DbCL catches the other half of the Database/Contents combo so that
> all the rights over a single db file are taken care of.
> ===
>
> HTH
>
> ~Jordan
>
>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Apr 2009, at 17:50, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The PDDL is Public Domain -- no rights over the data/database.
>>> You give them up. A bit like the Python sketch with the parrot.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot>
>>>
>>> The ODbL is copyleft for databases. Legal code to put some
>>> restrictions around a database and saying that if you use this and
>>> make changes, you have to release your changes under the ODbL too.
>>> It's in development but about to be released. It has a companion
>>> for the content of the database (now) called the DbCL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They should be using the PDDL for actual databases/data, if they
>>> want to dedicate those to the public domain! It's been out for
>>> over a year. Like any licence (or if you prefer calling it a
>>> "legal tool dedicating work to the public domain"), you can only
>>> license/dedicate what you own.
>>>
>>> Let me know if this helps.
>>>
>>> ~Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 DbCL).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~Jordan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____
>>>>>> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More details at:
>>>>>> <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Data at:
>>>>>> <http://www.opendatacommons.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> odc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> odc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ____
>>> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>>>
>>> jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com
>>>
>>> More details at:
>>> <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
>>>
>>> Open Data at:
>>> <http://www.opendatacommons.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ____
> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>
> jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com
>
> More details at:
> <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
>
> Open Data at:
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org>
>
>
More information about the odc-discuss
mailing list