> 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 > announcements@opensource.org. 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