15,627
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + + +
→Why?
We came to the conclusion that this was the best licensing model after some hesitation. This hesitation stemmed from the hope that it would be possible to construct a copyleft data license, or reuse the only existing one ({{Q|1583}}). We became convinced this was futile and thus a bad idea through reading these references: {{Q|2008}}.
We came to the conclusion that this was the best licensing model after some hesitation. This hesitation stemmed from the hope that it would be possible to construct a copyleft data license, or reuse the only existing one ({{Q|1583}}). We became convinced this was futile and thus a bad idea through reading these references: {{Q|2008}}.
We want to highlight some key quotes:
{{Quote
|text=
Eben Moglen has often pointed out that anyone who attacks the GPL is at a disadvantage, because if they somehow show that the license is legally invalid, then they get copyright’s “default”: which is to say, they don’t get anything. So they are forced to fight about the specific terms, rather than the validity of the license as a whole.
In contrast, in much of the world (and certainly in the US), if you show that a database license is legally invalid, then you get database’s default: which is to say, you get everything. So someone who doesn’t want to follow the copyleft has very, very strong incentives to demolish your license altogether.
|author=Luis Villa
|title=''[https://lu.is/blog/2016/09/12/copyleft-and-data-database-law-as-poor-platform/ Copyleft and data: database law as (poor) platform]''
}}
=== Other datasets ===
For convenience, we maintain a list of [[related datasets]] and their licenses.
For convenience, we maintain a list of [[related datasets]] and their licenses.