[odc-discuss] [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, choice of law, and "porting" (and why ODC won't have a porting process)

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Tue May 26 17:34:35 UTC 2009

2009/5/26 Russ Nelson <russ at cloudmade.com>:
> On May 26, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>> An occupational hazard of being a lawyer is to always try to hedge,
>> even a little bit, even when the chance are really remote.  So I can't
>> say that unequivocally Open Data Commons will never go through a
>> porting process similar to the one by CC.  But given the cost in both
>> time and money that undertaking such a project would mean, as well as
>> an unclear set of benefits for doing so, I see the chances of Open
>> Data Commons doing a similar process as very very remote.
> Also look at the EU Public License.  It's a reciprocal license for
> software (specifically mentions source code).  The most interesting
> thing about it is that it was done on the EU Commission level, AND
> they got the associated governments to all agree that infringements of
> the license may be litigated under any lanauge version of the
> license.  I don't know if the licenses were "ported" or
> "translated" (following your use of those two terms), but the goal was
> to have licenses which may be read and trusted to be legally accurate
> no matter where you are in the EU.

That's interesting to know. It does seem however that this didn't seem
to be so much case of "porting" as simple translation.

I would also emphasize that an "unported" ODbL will still be able to
be read and trusted no matter where you are in the EU or outside it.


More information about the odc-discuss mailing list