[odc-discuss] Fedora analysis

Wed Mar 11 09:46:14 UTC 2009

2009/3/9 Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>:
> Hi,
>
> (Note: I'm not subscribed to this list, so please copy me on any reply.)
>
> Regarding the Fedora/Red Hat analysis of the Factual Information
> License, we were concerned about the definition of "Use":
>
>  “Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
>  copyright, whether in the original medium or any other; and includes
>  modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a
>  different mode or format. This includes the right to sublicense the
>  work.
>
> A broad definition of "use" is fine. What's somewhat confusing here is
> that you give an apparently broad definition and then go to the effort
> of giving a rather specific and narrow form of modification "use" that
> might be understood to imply that broader rights of modification,
> available under background copyright law, are *not* within the scope of
> "use", despite the apparent scope of the first part of the definition.
> That is, it's almost like saying "in case you think that the preceding
> definition doesn't include any modification rights, in fact it includes
> the following particular limited modification right". This naturally
> leaves the reader wondering whether other forms of modification are
> somehow excluded from the definition.
>
> Note that the same concern was expressed by abunai at
> http://www.co-ment.net/text/894/ :

I take your point and see how this could be confusing. Let's see if
this sentence can be deleted.

I would also ask you to take a look at the Public Domain and
Dedication License (PDDL):

<http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/>

Background: The FIL + ODbL were drafted before the PDDL was prepared
and released. The FIL and PDDL are rather similar -- the only real
difference AFAICT is that the PDDL talks about databases where as the
FIL focuses on 'data'. The original intention, I believe, was for the
FIL to be used for very small sets of 'data' that would not constitute
a DB. The FIL would could then be used to ensure that all rights in
the data had been waived.

However, it can be difficult to define where 'data' turns into a
database. Given this the PDDL, which waives all rights both in the DB
and the 'data' qua data, might be a better option.

>  Why is modifying restricted to "as may be technically necessary"? It
>  should also modifications for any purpose.
>
> I'd like to offer a suggested improvement:
>
>    “Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by
>    copyright, whether in the original medium or any other. This
>    includes, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work.
>
> (I think it is justified to clarify that sublicensing rights are
> included in this definition.)

This seems a good clarificatory simplification.

> Rufus Pollock wrote:
>
>> Thus I don't understand the concerns expressed in the quoted response
>> that 'Use' may somehow be limited (the fact that it says "and includes
>> modifying the work ..." does not limit in any way the previous
>> sentence).
>
> It's good to know that that is not the intention, but if so, the
> specific narrow example of modification shouldn't be necessary.  If
> you're going to refer to modification, leave no doubt that the full
> scope of modification rights under copyright law are available, since
> that is the intention.

The point is taken. I think this is a good mod.

Regards,

Rufus