[odc-discuss] An attribution-only version of the open database license

Wed Nov 18 11:45:12 UTC 2009

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>
>> and, of course, if someone really wants an NC license they could just
>> hack it into the ODbL, or create their own. nothing is gained from not
>> having a license variant, just because we don't agree with it.
>
> It's whether or not you want to lend them your credibility. It's whether or
> not you want your "brand" (ODbL, or OKFN) to cover "less open" things also.

so this is really two questions:
1. are there some people who would find an ODbL-NC useful?
2. should ODC be associating with NC and other "less open" licenses?

i've been answering the first, you've been answering the second ;-)

> Taking your example, and Steve's "giving people choice", to the extreme that
> would mean that Creative Commons should also create a
> "CC-All-Rights-Reserved" license because hey, people are going to do that
> anyway!

there is - isn't it called BY-NC-ND or something?

> But maybe I'm too political here; personally, I think that the "ND" and "NC"
> licenses that CC seem to support are a step *away* from what my idea of a
> "creative commons" (without the caps) is, and I would at least urge OKFN to
> think hard whether it is in their interest to endorse licenses that have
> building blocks like that.

sure. but there are some who would argue that "SA" licenses are a step
away from open, and then we just end up having a license holy war.

yes, NC and especially ND are more restrictive, but stating that NC
licenses aren't open is wrong - they're just not as open. sure, it's
annoying that google claim to be releasing data openly, but it's all
NC and no-compete and a bunch of other stuff. it would be nice to say
to google - "you can't claim to be open because you don't meet this
definition". but unfortunately it would probably be difficult to get
the trademark on the word "open" ;-)

cheers,

matt