Silly question, maybe:
Is it acceptable for a free license to limit the use of whatever it covers to lawful purposes?
The question is not about a free software license, but about an open data license - specifically this one, by the Danish government body Digitaliseringsstyrelsen (Agency for Digitalization):
http://digitaliser.dk/resource/2432531
The clause that makes me wonder is this:
"Det skal sikres, at brug af data er i overensstemmelse med dansk ret."
... meaning ...
"It must be ensured that the data are used in acccordance with Danish law."
Apart from this one clause, the license is a very decent BSD- or MIT-style license.
But I wonder if this one clause is a poison pill that they should be adviced to take out?
Now suppose ... someone took property value data to make an app which figures out which families may be rich and uses it to burgle them. When they are caught, should they also be prosecuted for breaking the open data license? They might, but it seems absurd.
A second scenario: Someone makes another and perfectly legitimate traffic monitoring application, and someone buys that app and uses it to figure out when trucks carrying valuable goods pass. The crooks did not make the app, which is legit. Should the supplier of the app be prosecuted for not ensuring a legal use of the data? But how could they?
Could a free software license contain such a clause? I guess it would be non-free. But open data or open content? I'm a bit confused as to what to think about that.
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk, Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:52:58 +0200
Is it acceptable for a free license to limit the use of whatever it covers to lawful purposes?
I can only draw a parallel to Free Software here.
Freedom number 0 includes that a Free Software license must allow the use of a program for any purpose. Prosecution for breaking national law is of course not restricted by that. However in this case it is clearly the license putting limits on the purpose. Personally I would see a problem with this, even if the clause were purely tautological (which it is not).
The reason why this clause is included, is probably to ensure compliance with Danish law beyond national borders. For people outside of Danish jurisdiction this constitutes an arbitrary cut back of their freedom to use the software (if we were speaking of software). Within the jurisdiction of Denmark the clause would appear to be mostly superfluous.
I cannot tell, how this applies to questions of open data. If there is an open data definition, which ensures similar freedoms, then you have a path of reasoning here. It may not be easy to convince the government agency to give up this clause. I suspect they intend to prevent circumvention of national data protection laws.
On 6 April 2014 17:45, Paul Hänsch paul@fsfe.org wrote:
I cannot tell, how this applies to questions of open data. If there is an open data definition, which ensures similar freedoms, then you have a path of reasoning here.
There's a Free Content definition, http://freedomdefined.org/Definition by Erik Moeller of Wikimedia, and endorsed by Wikimedia. I'm not sure it quite covers this.
It may not be easy to convince the government agency to give up this clause. I suspect they intend to prevent circumvention of national data protection laws.
That's a usage restriction, so I suspect it would fail.
- d.
Thanks for the input!
On 04/06/2014 07:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 6 April 2014 17:45, Paul Hänsch paul@fsfe.org wrote:
I cannot tell, how this applies to questions of open data. If there is an open data definition, which ensures similar freedoms, then you have a path of reasoning here.
There's a Free Content definition, http://freedomdefined.org/Definition by Erik Moeller of Wikimedia, and endorsed by Wikimedia. I'm not sure it quite covers this.
It may not be easy to convince the government agency to give up this clause. I suspect they intend to prevent circumvention of national data protection laws.
That's a usage restriction, so I suspect it would fail.
Open Data is normally supposed to follow the Open Definition:
I suppose it would mostly fall foul of #8: Discrimination against "fields of endeavor".
The definition does not state as clearly as the Free Software Definition that the data can be used for any purpose.
On 6 April 2014 18:46, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
I suppose it would mostly fall foul of #8: Discrimination against "fields of endeavor". The definition does not state as clearly as the Free Software Definition that the data can be used for any purpose.
i've just realised why it completely fails as any sort of free or open licence:
The term means "these conditions may change at any time without notice."
So it's a temporary permission license.
- d.
On 04/06/2014 07:53 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 6 April 2014 18:46, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
I suppose it would mostly fall foul of #8: Discrimination against "fields of endeavor". The definition does not state as clearly as the Free Software Definition that the data can be used for any purpose.
i've just realised why it completely fails as any sort of free or open licence:
The term means "these conditions may change at any time without notice."
So it's a temporary permission license.
I wrote Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, or rather the civil servant in charge of open data and this license, and she has answered that this is really a bug in the license.
What they had *wanted* to say is that the license does not release the recipient from obligations to fulfill other legal requirements, and that the authority cannot be held responsible for unlawful use of the data.
I've been told that since they had wanted to make a clear and unambiguous license, they now intend to replace the "ensure data are used in accordance with the law" clause with a disclaimer as outlined above - which wouldn't be a problem, since it can't be read as a further restriction.
Basically, they answered that this is a bug in the license and they hope to be able to fix it in the next version. This is good news, especially if they make the change soon.
On 12 April 2014 15:58, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
I wrote Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, or rather the civil servant in charge of open data and this license, and she has answered that this is really a bug in the license. What they had *wanted* to say is that the license does not release the recipient from obligations to fulfill other legal requirements, and that the authority cannot be held responsible for unlawful use of the data. I've been told that since they had wanted to make a clear and unambiguous license, they now intend to replace the "ensure data are used in accordance with the law" clause with a disclaimer as outlined above - which wouldn't be a problem, since it can't be read as a further restriction. Basically, they answered that this is a bug in the license and they hope to be able to fix it in the next version. This is good news, especially if they make the change soon.
Excellent news! \o/ Good work!
BTW, this is why the Creative Commons 3.0.1 licenses exist - because a mention of "moral rights" looked a bit much like a condition rather than a disclaimer, so they released a clarified version.
- d.
Hey Carsten,
On 04/12/2014 04:58 PM, Carsten Agger wrote:
On 04/06/2014 07:53 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 6 April 2014 18:46, Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk wrote:
I suppose it would mostly fall foul of #8: Discrimination against "fields of endeavor". The definition does not state as clearly as the Free Software Definition that the data can be used for any purpose.
i've just realised why it completely fails as any sort of free or open licence:
The term means "these conditions may change at any time without notice."
So it's a temporary permission license.
I wrote Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, or rather the civil servant in charge of open data and this license, and she has answered that this is really a bug in the license.
thank you very much for your initiative. Although it is about Open Data and not about Free Software, I personally think it is important for the Free Software movement to make a philosophical standing in these newer movements that sometimes forget about the basics. So, thank you very much for your pro-activity and I am happy you received such a positive answer.
Best, Erik