German open data license v2 about opendefinition HOT 4 CLOSED

The major difference of the German Data license compared to other licenses is that it is based on “German Public Law” rather than “German Private Law”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Germany

This means that it the “license” is actually more a “dedication”, much the way a government dedicates the use of roads to the public. From my understanding intellectual property legislation is based in private law in most judiciaries. However I have not enough legal expertise to fully understand possible consequences.

I have personally invested a lot of time to convince the German government to use a well established open license (such as CC-0 or CC-BY) rather than creating a national license for well known reasons of license proliferation. I was not successful, however. The main reason for the creation of the national license is the perception that a national license has a bigger chance to be widely accepted by government bodies here in Germany.

So in a nutshell my view on the strengths and weaknesses are:

a. it was not a good idea in the first place to create the license
b. it is intended to be a permissive open license
c. its very light wight and short
d. we don’t fully understand the consequences of the fact that the license is based on “German Public Law” rather than “German Private Law”

from opendefinition.

On the mailing list Mike asked:

I enjoy the brevity, and dropping NC/adding 0 a great thing.
a) Does the brevity cause any required permissions to not be granted? I
hope the answer is "no" but seems worth a closer look.

I made a quick comparison with ODbL, CC-BY 4.0, and, more closely, European Directive 96/9/EC on databases. My personal conclusion is that the permission grant of German-data licenses is a nice piece of writing that conveys to the reader the intended meaning pretty well, along with the necessary rights. I think brevity and readability are underrated qualities of a legal text, and FWIW I'm glad to see this work.

I'd note a few differences, in case you may have another opinion on their relevance. (my personal opinion is they don't matter, but IANAL and have no knowledge on German law)

1. The European Directive mentioned above states "in whole or in part". This expression is quite widespread, and is missing here. But I don't see how I can claim that any use was permitted, in particular to be altered and processed, but not cut parts of or something. I'd say the text doesn't reasonably support the opposite interpretation.

2. The directive also contains "translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration". Here I wondered if it would be better to give the rights to translate or adapt explicitly. But I doubt it's necessary, "any use [..] in particular" includes logically translation and adaptation, and also, from another perspective, the text of the directive itself says that translation, adaptation, arrangement are only a few 'kinds of' alteration. Alteration is explicitly covered in German Data licenses. ODbL enumerates translation and adaptation as kinds of alterations.

All the rest of permissions seem even more neatly covered, than these two details I stopped to.

Actually, my whole reading of the entire text of the licenses is the same with the reading mentioned already in the mailing list thread (so arguably the above attempted nitpicking was redundant): "any use [..], commercial and non-commercial, in particular [relevant examples]". This wording should cover logically any applicable right.

Just my two cents..

from opendefinition.

Thanks @enyst for those reassuring two eurocents...

I'm still a bit curious about what makes the licenses operate under public rather than private law. It was pointed out to me offline that the previous draft contained language that maybe hints at this, roughly "data provider makes the data, content and services available in fulfilling its public missions" and could be construed as imposing license conditions irrespective of whether copyright or anything similar applies (IIUC). But such language is not present in the revision, and with only BY and 0 licenses available, it is hard to see as much of an attempt at unilateral imposition of conditions. But then I'm still left wondering how the current proposal operates under public rather than private law. :) I don't know that such curiosity should hold up putting up for approval.

from opendefinition.

These were approved and have been added to /licenses

from opendefinition.