Question about free licenses

[Carsten Agger]

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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140406/46f03c8f/attachment.pgp>

[Paul Hänsch]

Carsten Agger <agger at modspil.dk>, Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:52:58 +0200

Post by Carsten Agger
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.
--
Paul H?nsch ?? Jabber: paul at jabber.fsfe.org
Webmaster ?????? Support the FSFE
Free Software Foundation Europe ?? http://fsfe.org/support/?paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140406/86de819f/attachment.pgp>

[David Gerard]

Post by Paul Hänsch
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.

Post by Paul Hänsch
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.

[Carsten Agger]

Thanks for the input!

Post by David Gerard

Post by Paul Hänsch
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.

Post by Paul Hänsch
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:


http://opendefinition.org/od/


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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140406/4c152c5b/attachment.pgp>

[David Gerard]

Post by Carsten Agger
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.

[Carsten Agger]

Post by David Gerard

Post by Carsten Agger
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.

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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140412/e10cfa65/attachment.pgp>

[David Gerard]

Post by Carsten Agger
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.

[Erik Albers]

Hey Carsten,

Post by Carsten Agger

Post by David Gerard

Post by Carsten Agger
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.

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