[odc-discuss] version 1.1 of OdBL?
Athanassios I. Hatzis
hatzis at healis.gr
Fri Jul 16 10:52:54 UTC 2010
it seems to me that there is confusion on the air, especially from non-IT
people between "static" data that appear in database look-up tables and
dynamic data, aka content of the database. Not to mention of course the very
important topic on the design of database schema that is certainly an IPR
issue that cannot be covered from CC licenses. On top of this one can add
the "mechanics" of the database (i.e. procedures, functions, etc....) that
are covered from software licenses.
My point is that it will help a lot of people if you add in your site what
constitutes a software database, what are the current licenses available and
what parts of the database can cover sufficiently. You certainly touched a
hot potato with OdBL but it has to become more clear how it is
differentiated from the other licenses, what parts of a software database
covers and in what extent.
I am happy that I combined OdBL with GNU GPL in MEDILIG project
(http://medilig.org) and I certainly found a reason to act in this way as I
felt that I am not sufficiently covered from only GPL, CC or OdBL. It is
also a good case scenario if people that have used your license tell their
story on what grounds they decided to add this on their project.
In my case one has to pay attention on what kind of data I have released
with it. I will come up again on this topic as I owe a reply to Jonathan
In the meantime maybe Jordan can shed some more light along these lines. I
am not sure whether I have seen something on your site that explains these
in a simple way.
Kind regards to all
Athanassios I. Hatzis, PhD
From: odc-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:odc-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Jordan S Hatcher
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:38 AM
To: Jo Walsh
Cc: odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [odc-discuss] version 1.1 of OdBL?
On 15 Jul 2010, at 12:27, Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear all,
> I'm looking to use the OdBL to license data from a research project.
> We have visiting lawyers at EDINA and i'm planning to ask them, as well as
JISC Legal, for an opinion on OdBL for licensing research data.
For research data, I suggest that inline with the recommendations in the
Panton Principles and the Science Commons Open Access Data Protocol (for
public domain for science data) that any legal review not concentrate on the
ODbL but instead on the range of licensing options available. This would
include paying special attention to our Public Domain Dedication and License
(PDDL) and CC0 by Creative Commons
Apart from my personal opinions on the subject, Panton and the Science
Commons work do reflect a desire by many in the sciences to go for a public
> It occurs to me that there may be a version 1.1 in the works.
> Is this the case, will changes be significant, is there an overview?
> Is now a bad time to expend lawyer brain energy on version 1.0?
Like any open license, we're trying to keep track of any suggested changes
for a 1.1 version, but no, there is no 1.1 in the works that would surpass
the current license anytime soon.
s - a quick one page trying to explain to researchers why they may like a
> http://chalice.blogs.edina.ac.uk/ - the specific project, but i hope to
get advice i can push around a lot of digital humanities projects.
> Jo Walsh
> Unlock places - http://unlock.edina.ac.uk/
> phone: +44 (0)131 650 2973
> skype: metazool
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
More at: <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
Open Knowledge: <http://www.okfn.org/>
odc-discuss mailing list
odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
More information about the odc-discuss