

Ask HN: Is there a license like GPL for data? - smallegan

I am interested in the creation of some publicly created and publicly available datasets. Can anyone tell me if there is a license out there already in existence that would be to data as the GPL is to software? Thanks in advance!
======
bbgm
When you say GPL, do you mean copy left? You could probably use CC-BY-SA for
that, but I'd recommend reading this article by John Wilbanks at Science
Commons

[http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/06/open_data_an...](http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/06/open_data_and_creative_commons.php)

as well as the Panton Principles

<http://pantonprinciples.org/>

In general, like with certain software tools and libraries a copy left license
might not be the best choice, which is part of where John comes from.

------
tzs
Before getting to the issue of licensing, at least if you are in the US, you
probably should consider whether or not you are doing something copyrightable.
If not, the licensing issue doesn't even arise.

Facts are not copyrightable, but the arrangement or presentation can be. The
major case law on this is Feist vs. Rural Telephone. Wikipedia has a good
writeup at the moment:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service).

------
gte910h
Data doesn't have the same protection as forms of expression do.

Copyright doesn't apply in the same way, educate yourself a bit before trying
too hard; you may find out you're not going to be able to do what you want to
do:

<http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm>

<http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html>

<http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Com...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Compilations_and_the_sweat_of_the_brow_doctrine)

------
mjgoins
I don't know if it's possible to copyright data (if I understand your
definition of data correctly), but it should not be, at least, not in the US.
A quick skim of the wikipedia article on US copyright law shows that the scope
of copyright is meant only to cover the arts and literary and scientific
writing.

Obviously we know that (unfortunately) that includes software, but data would
be a stretch.

Also here: <http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/#dbcopyright> The
important quote is: "...whether the data itself is copyrightable, depends on
what it is. To the extent it consists of factual information, it will not be
copyrightable."

If it's not copyrighted, you don't need the GPL or anything similar.

~~~
tzs
"Obviously we know that (unfortunately) that includes software, but data would
be a stretch"

How is it unfortunate that copyright covers software? Without copyright there
would be no such thing as Free Software as it would be impossible to require
people to distribute source with binaries or to distribute their changes.

Closed source could survive somewhat in a world without copyright on software
since it doesn't come with source in the first place and can at least attempt
to use DRM or other technological means to stop people from redistributing.

------
jonafato
What about the GNU Free Documentation License:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html>

IANAL, but this seems to be at least close to what you are looking for. I do
not know exactly what constitutes the difference between a "document" and a
"data set" (outside of the physical format"), but I would think that the
license could apply to any data set printed on paper, so it could also apply
to one in digital format.

------
fizx
A quick google found this: <http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1-0/>
YMMV

