a data licensing problem
I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like to comply with the Open Source Definition. BTW, I just sent an announcement to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're not subscribed, you missed it. :-) -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson wrote: I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like to comply with the Open Source Definition. BTW, I just sent an announcement to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're not subscribed, you missed it. :-) What's the problem? Simply specify that open source applications can use the data while any closed source application must get an appropriate. It's open if it's open and closed if it's closed. The Sleepycat license is here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php BTW it is FSF and open source definition approved. This happens all the time. My companies own software is delivered under such a license. FYI - Richard feels it's better to use the GPL but it is still an acceptable license BSD -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson scripsit: > I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A company sells > datasets. They wish to cooperate with the opensource folks to the > extent that opensource folks can use a free copy of their dataset. > They would also like to be able to sell that same dataset to people > using proprietary operating systems. On the other hand, they would > also like to comply with the Open Source Definition. This sounds like Open Motif, where it's whether or not your kernel is Open Source that determines whether or not you can get a libre license for Motif. We decided that that scheme was not OSD-compliant, and indeed it never claimed to be. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased.--Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
> I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A > company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the > opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use > a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able > to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary > operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like > to comply with the Open Source Definition. A dataset is entitled to a copyright, albeit a thin one. The individual facts contained in it are possibly not copyrightable. But the dataset itself may be licensed on whatever terms the copyright owner wants, as a copyrightable compilation, including under multiple licenses. (You omitted to tell us what the dataset contains. The telephone book is copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't.) Suppose the copyright owner wants to let everyone use the dataset, but any modifications that are made and distributed are to become available under reciprocal terms (e.g., under the same license). The OSL will suffice. I believe that a modified dataset is a derivative work of the original dataset, but it might be best for your hypothetical company to hire a lawyer to check out the cases on that point in his jurisdiction. The issue is, if you merely add more non-copyrightable facts to a dataset, is that considered a modification/derivative work? By analogy, if I were to take a published dictionary and add definitions and republish it, am I creating a derivative work of the dictionary? I think so, but I'd want to verify this point. The copyright owner can separately license the dataset to anyone he pleases under any license he wants. He can allow incorporation into proprietary products without a reciprocity provision, for example, in exchange for money. He can promise follow-on versions (e.g., "maintenance" or "support") for a fee. I've seen client companies make good money selling compilations of facts gleaned from the public trade press; their customers simply wanted to pay for the service of creating and publishing the collection and keeping it current. In another example, companies can also make money selling collections of freely-available clip art. To be sure that the dataset remains available under the open source definition, your hypothetical company should license it under a license that is OSI approved and that doesn't treat "software" as a narrow category of intellectual property. That's why I'd recommend the OSL or the AFL. The AFL, of course, doesn't include the reciprocity provision, so it probably isn't what your hypothetical company would want. > BTW, I just sent an announcement to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're not subscribed, you > missed it. :-) I missed it. :( /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
> What's the problem? Simply specify that open source > applications can use > the data while any closed source application must get an appropriate. > It's open if it's open and closed if it's closed. The > Sleepycat license > is here > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php The Sleepycat license is vendor and product specific. It refers to "DB software" (whatever that is) and includes the following warranty: "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY SLEEPYCAT SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND" The Sleepycat licenses is not reusable as is by other vendors. I notice that the Sleepycat license as published on the OSI website includes a copy of two other licenses, one probably the BSD license and the other a Harvard license. That's probably in error. I'm copying OSI's webmaster, because that probably needs to be corrected. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Brian DeSpain scripsit: > What's the problem? Simply specify that open source applications can use > the data while any closed source application must get an appropriate. > It's open if it's open and closed if it's closed. The Sleepycat license > is here > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php Yes, but a work that uses the Sleepycat libraries is clearly a derivative work of Sleepycat, at least if it does static linking. Saying that there exists *data* that only open-source applications can access is like trying to insist (by legal, not technical, means) that your page on the WWW is only to be read by people with Mozilla (etc.) browsers, and not IE browsers. How do you manage to enforce such a thing? -- And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > The telephone book is > copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't. Say what? I thought the whole point of Feist v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. was that even compilation copyright doesn't apply to phone books, there being insufficient creativity, even for an IP court, in merely alphabetizing names. > Suppose the copyright owner wants to let everyone use the dataset, But that isn't what they want. They want only certain privileged persons to use the dataset: those who run free operating systems, or those who run free applications, it's not clear which. (What about free applications on unfree OSes, or vice versa?) That way they can continue to sell the data to the Windows-using masses. No way this is OSD-compliant. > [I]f I were to take a published dictionary and add definitions and > republish it, am I creating a derivative work of the dictionary? I > think so, but I'd want to verify this point. Sure you are. The definientia in the dictionary are not subject to copyright, but the definitions themselves certainly are -- compare any two dictionaries from different companies to see how very different the definitions are: no content-form merger here! The exemplary quotations are generally considered fair use, although I don't know of any actual court cases about this. IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words" -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
> > The telephone book is > > copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't. > > Say what? I thought the whole point of Feist v. Rural Tel. > Serv. Co. was that even compilation copyright doesn't apply > to phone books, there being insufficient creativity, even for > an IP court, in merely alphabetizing names. The Feist court was more ambiguous than either your comment or my comment would indicate. A telephone book that contains simply an alphabetical listing of names, addresses and telephone numbers of every telephone subscriber is probably not copyrightable. The yellow pages, on the other hand, probably is. A telephone directory that contains other copyrightable subject matter (How To Use a Telephone" instructions, for example), or marital status, religion, etc., might be copyrightable. Neither of us knows what Russ' hypothetical company is actually putting in its dataset, which again points out the folly of giving legal advice over the Internet in response to a hypothetical question. > > Suppose the copyright owner wants to let everyone use the dataset, > > But that isn't what they want. They want only certain > privileged persons to use the dataset: those who run free > operating systems, or those who run free applications, it's > not clear which. (What about free applications on unfree > OSes, or vice versa?) That way they can continue to sell the > data to the Windows-using masses. No way this is OSD-compliant. You're right. I twisted Russ' hypothetical to get a result I wanted. If the real situation is as you describe it, not open source. > > [I]f I were to take a published dictionary and add definitions and > > republish it, am I creating a derivative work of the dictionary? I > > think so, but I'd want to verify this point. > > Sure you are. The definientia in the dictionary are not > subject to copyright, but the definitions themselves > certainly are -- compare any two dictionaries from different > companies to see how very different the definitions are: no > content-form merger here! The exemplary quotations are > generally considered fair use, although I don't know of any > actual court cases about this. > > IANAL, TINLA. Go ahead and get your law degree so we can call you JD instead of IANAL. But first take the course entitled "Why not to give specific legal advice to non-clients over the Internet." :-) /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
In rereading the Feist case I found the following quotation from a similar case. I thought you might find it interesting. Rockford Map Publishers, Inc. v. Directory Service Co., 768 F.2d 145 (76h Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061. [Defendant challenged copyright protection for plaintiff's map, which was drawn principally from numerical information in public land-title record books; the defense was that plaintiff expended little time and effort in compiling the map that defendant copied.] The court wrote: "The copyright laws protect the work, not the amount of effort expended. A person who produces a short new work or makes a small improvement in a few hours gets a copyright for that contribution fully as effective as that on a novel written as a life's work Copyright covers, after all, only the incremental contribution and not the underlying information. "The input of time is irrelevant. A photograph may be copyrighted, although it is the work of an instant and its significance may be accidental In 14 hours Mozart could write a piano concerto, J.S. Bach a cantata, or Dickens a week's installment of Bleak House. The Laffer Curve, an economic graph prominent in political debates, appeared on the back of a napkin after dinner, the work of a minute. All of these are copyrightable. /1/ "Dickens did not need to complete Bleak House before receiving a copyright; every chapter -- indeed every sentence -- could be protected standing alone. Rockford Maps updates and republishes maps on more than 150 counties every year. If it put out one large book with every map, even Directory Service would concede that the book was based on a great deal of "industry." Rockford Map, like Dickens, loses none of its rights by publishing copyrightable matter in smaller units." _ /1/ "In principle, Mozart's work is in the public domain and anyway was a work for hire. The Archbishop of Salzburg probably held the rights. There were no copyright laws in seventeenth-century Germany, and Bach had no way to protect his rights. Dickens was at the mercy of his publishers. Only Laffer's napkin, and not the idea represented by the graph, may be copyrighted. But the principle's the thing." /Larry Rosen (although the quotation is from the decision by Judge Easterbrook). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > > I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A > > company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the > > opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use > > a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able > > to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary > > operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like > > to comply with the Open Source Definition. > > A dataset is entitled to a copyright, albeit a thin one. The individual > facts contained in it are possibly not copyrightable. But the dataset > itself may be licensed on whatever terms the copyright owner wants, as a > copyrightable compilation, including under multiple licenses. (You > omitted to tell us what the dataset contains. The telephone book is > copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't.) The dataset in question (yes, I'm being cagey) is definitely copyrightable. And yes, they can copyright it any way they want. What they want, though, is a way to price differentiate. They'd like to be able to specify, for example, that the data could only be distribute in conjunction with software which is OSD-licensed. I think that runs afoul of the OSD term that prohibits discrimination. They'd *really* like to get the best of both worlds: cooperate with people who share and stick it to the people who don't (or, um, can't.) -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: a data licensing problem
Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > The Sleepycat license is vendor and product specific. It refers to "DB > software" (whatever that is) and includes the following warranty: "THIS > SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY SLEEPYCAT SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND" The > Sleepycat licenses is not reusable as is by other vendors. Yeah, and you wouldn't want to, either. You'd want to use the Academic Free License. > I notice that the Sleepycat license as published on the OSI website > includes a copy of two other licenses, one probably the BSD license and > the other a Harvard license. That's probably in error. I'm copying > OSI's webmaster, because that probably needs to be corrected. No, actually, that *is* the Sleepycat license. All three parts. You have to comply with all the terms listed therein. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
John Cowan writes: > to insist (by legal, not technical, means) that your page on the WWW is > only to be read by people with Mozilla (etc.) browsers, and not IE browsers. > How do you manage to enforce such a thing? Aha! Bing! That's how you do it! You publish the data in a special open source format, which is unusable by Windows applications. Sure, somebody in the open source world might create a format converter, but why would they bother? Even if they did, you're selling the "real" dataset, not an in-coverted one. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson wrote: Lawrence E. Rosen writes: > The Sleepycat license is vendor and product specific. It refers to "DB > software" (whatever that is) and includes the following warranty: "THIS > SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY SLEEPYCAT SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND" The > Sleepycat licenses is not reusable as is by other vendors. I didn't suggest simply copying and pasting it. Simply put the sleepy cat license does allow the licensing behavior required. I doubt very much that the said company is using the IP of Harvard and Berkley. Those sections could be safely snipped. You actually cannot simply cut and past verbatim for various licenses. The real protection lies as Lawrence pointed out in the copyright inherent in the data. This company might be seeking to allow commercial development of their IP while at the same time allowing open source use of the data. Generally and this only applies to software it's not uncommon to license differently to closed source applications (presumably they are not going to release source back to the community or the copyright holder). Does the Academic Free license achieve this goal? Yeah, and you wouldn't want to, either. You'd want to use the Academic Free License. > I notice that the Sleepycat license as published on the OSI website > includes a copy of two other licenses, one probably the BSD license and > the other a Harvard license. That's probably in error. I'm copying > OSI's webmaster, because that probably needs to be corrected. No, actually, that *is* the Sleepycat license. All three parts. You have to comply with all the terms listed therein. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson scripsit: > They'd *really* like to get the best of both worlds: cooperate with > people who share and stick it to the people who don't (or, um, can't.) As an employee of Reuters, which has been selling price-discriminated information for over 150 years, there is no way for your company to do what it wants except to protect its information with the full force of copyright, and to be really effective, they need exclusive (or effectively exclusive) control of the source as well, either by owning it or by being first-to-market all the time. Otherwise, the people who get to use the information free can undersell you not with the information itself but with the products of its use. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased.--Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson scripsit: > Aha! Bing! That's how you do it! You publish the data in a special > open source format, which is unusable by Windows applications. Sure, > somebody in the open source world might create a format converter, but > why would they bother? Even if they did, you're selling the "real" > dataset, not an in-coverted one. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely unintelligible, unless you are trolling me. Windows programmers are just as smart, one by one, as open-source ones. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves." --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
John Cowan writes: > Russell Nelson scripsit: > > > Aha! Bing! That's how you do it! You publish the data in a special > > open source format, which is unusable by Windows applications. Sure, > > somebody in the open source world might create a format converter, but > > why would they bother? Even if they did, you're selling the "real" > > dataset, not an in-coverted one. > > I'm sorry, but this is absolutely unintelligible, unless you are trolling me. > Windows programmers are just as smart, one by one, as open-source ones. If they wanted to run that free software crap, they'd do it. "Obviously", what you get by paying for it is better than the stuff you get for free. It's not that Windows users or developers are stupid. It's just that they don't mind showing their appreciation by paying money. In the open source world, we pay respect. And that's exactly what this customer wants: respect from the open source people and money from the Windows people. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it's better to be free 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | than to be correct. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
Russell Nelson scripsit: > And that's > exactly what this customer wants: respect from the open source people > and money from the Windows people. And which am I? I'm typing now on a Windows system that's ssh-ed to a Linux system running elm. Does it matter if I use the proprietary or the Cygwin ssh client? Exactly how do I get to use your client's data, if at all? If I want to count the number of data elements, is it critical which version of Perl I use? Or do I have to keep the data solely on the Linux filesystem and only access it from the console? What does this all have to do with the OSD? -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased.--Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: a data licensing problem
To OSI License Discussion, From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, From: Lawrence E. Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I have a problem that I would like y'all to consider. A company sells datasets. They wish to cooperate with the opensource folks to the extent that opensource folks can use a free copy of their dataset. They would also like to be able to sell that same dataset to people using proprietary operating systems. On the other hand, they would also like to comply with the Open Source Definition. A dataset is entitled to a copyright, albeit a thin one. The individual facts contained in it are possibly not copyrightable. But the dataset itself may be licensed on whatever terms the copyright owner wants, as a copyrightable compilation, including under multiple licenses. (You omitted to tell us what the dataset contains. The telephone book is copyrightable, although the individual names and numbers aren't.) The dataset in question (yes, I'm being cagey) is definitely copyrightable. And yes, they can copyright it any way they want. What they want, though, is a way to price differentiate. They'd like to be able to specify, for example, that the data could only be distribute in conjunction with software which is OSD-licensed. I think that runs afoul of the OSD term that prohibits discrimination. They'd *really* like to get the best of both worlds: cooperate with people who share and stick it to the people who don't (or, um, can't.) Let me see if I have this correct: Our hypothetical company is distributing data which, given the right software, can be turned into information. They want to apply Open Source principles, which are intended for software rather than data, to the distribution of their data on open platforms. However, on closed platforms they want individuals to pay to obtain the data, and for the purposes of this argument, I'll assume that said individuals on closed platforms do not have free redistribution. Since the copyright question has already been answered, I'll skip that part. If the datasets are indeed different depending upon whether you pay or not, then the company will be effectively offering two different products under two different licenses; one OSD-complaint (presumably, as that is the stated goal), and one proprietary. If the datasets are the same, then the company can dual-license the same data, again using one OSD-compliant license and one proprietary license. These practices are nothing new in the software world; what Apple's doing is a prime example. The next question comes to proprietary and/or open changes that come back to the company in question, that they want to put into both datasets. This is easily solved by requiring the copyrights on changes assigned to said company, with those that don't want to do this for whatever reason being able to offer additional data as a third-party product. How easy this additional data is then able to be incorporated back into the main dataset depends upon the technologies in use. Again, these practices are nothing new. The proprietary license involved will, of course, violate the OSD in various ways, however I believe that falls outside our purview. I'm glad to see more interest is being taken in Open Source, however I believe that this discussion is off-topic for this list (at least it is according to the list info on the site). Cheers, Nathan. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
