[odc-discuss] Database Contents Licence (formerly the FIL)

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Thank you Rufus, that helps immensely.

Rufus Pollock wrote:
> 2009/4/30 Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind at jhu.edu>:
>   
>> 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
>>     
>
> IANAL: but no CC-BY (and CC BY-SA) are not suitable for database
> rights. That is why the ODbL has been drafted.
>
>   
>> "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.
>>     
>
> What do you mean by "data rights"? I'm generally in favour of
> deprecating the term "data" in these discussions because it tends to
> cause confusion. For example when you say data do we mean:
>
> 1. An individual piece (or small enough set so as not to merit any
> rights) factual information e.g. boiling point of a liquid.
>
> 2. Some material (but not the collection), perhaps including text of
> photographs which have their own individual copyrights.
>
> 3. A "Database": i.e. a collection of material arranged in a
> systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic
> or other means ...
>
> Usually when we people say data we really mean something like 1 or 3.
> In which case the answer to your question is definitely no CC-BY is
> not right. But at other times data can mean the some "copyright
> "Contents" of the DB which  which as discussed previously in this
> thread might be appropriately licensed using a CC-BY.
>
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> The 2nd one I believe. The PDDL was precisly set up so it can be
> applied to the DB alone (heterogeneous cases) but also to the DB +
> Contents when that is possible.
>
>   
>> 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
>>     
>
> You'd say: The database together with this part of the Contents
> {specify what it is} is licensed under the PDDL. This other part of
> the contents is licensed under this other license (or, if you don't
> control that, you'd say that instead).
>
> I'd suggest looking at the Freebase example.
>
>   
>> the PDDL, if I'm very clear about what data in the db is covered by the
>>     
>
> Again I'd avoid "data" here and say "Contents".
>
>   
>> 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
>>     
>
> Yes you can.
>
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> We are precisely trying to address the heterogeneous and homogeneous
> cases with these licenses which is why we have made an effort to
> distinguish the "Database" and the "Contents".
>
> To summarize:
>
> 1. For homogenous DB (No need to distinguish "Database" + "Contents")
>
> Share-Alike: Use Open Database License (ODbL) + Database Contents
> License (DbCL) (or some other suitable contents license of your
> choosing)
>
> Public domain: Use Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)
>
> 2. For non-homogenous DB (so he
>
> Share-alike: use ODbL for Database qua Database + whatever license you
> wish/can for Contents
>
> Public domain: use PDDL for Database qua Database + whatever license
> you wish/can for Contents.
>
>   
>> Thanks for the clarification, it's been extremely helpful.
>>     
>
> Glad to hear! The Database/Contents distinction and its importance was
> something I only really began to grok really properly quite recently.
>
> Rufus
>