Custom licenses in Argentina

Hi, in Argentina we have at least 3 cases of licenses that are free but not validated against Open Definition.

For example on the submission of he water dataset, here:

On this page:

Text reads “La descarga de datos de la Base de Datos Hidrológica Integrada es libre y gratuita, pero el consultante se compromete a citar a la Subsecretaría de Recursos Hídricos de la Nación, o al organismo responsable de la red correspondiente, como fuente de información en cualquier estudio o trabajo que utilice estos datos.”

Which means it’s

  • Custom license
  • Free
  • Attribution mandatory

But also some personal information is required to access the database.

How should the index list this?


It sounds like the licence may be equivalent to CC BY. If the licence allows anyone to "freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness).” then I would answer Yes to Openly licensed.


I agree that the licence sounds to be open.

However a requirement to supply personal details may mean that it is not freely downloadable, although the test should be proportionality (so, for instance, it might be reasonable to have API keys to ensure equitable shares of limited resources). Is download permission automatically granted or is there a vetting of applicants? Can register and download the data?


2015-09-11 15:10 GMT-03:00 dirdigeng

With respect to Openly Licensed? the current Open Definition is, in my reading of it, silent on the requirement for anonymous access.

The Open Data Census is more specific in its requirements for Publicly Available?:

In this case the submission made by @martinsz has answered “Yes” to Publicly Available?, so you may want to review that. From your comments (which are very good) it appears personal information is required to access the data but not a password, so in my mind, your answer is correct.

1 Like

I’m a bit confused. For some datasets in Korea, you need to create an account with a password on the government data portal first, then you have to request your use of the dataset with your account to get a Web API key. In some cases, your request would be automatically approved, in other cases, not. I do not think these cases in Korea are not considered as publicly available regardless of wheather it is automatically approved or not. What do you think , @Stephen?

My suggestions, based on the census help text, are:

  • can download anonymously means Publicly available? is a Yes.
  • can download by supplying personal information means Publicly available? is a Yes.
  • can download by registering and using a userid and password to access - Publicly available? is a No.

Sometimes you can be required to give personal information (e.g. a name and email) so publishers can keep you informed of updates or planned changes and ask if you’d like you project promoted. I think this is a good thing. The ideal would be optional registration for updates and anonymous downloads are also allowed.

What do others think?

1 Like

I think what you suggest is one good solution.

However, I am not sure if we can say it is publicly open when requiring personal information for use. I would say “No” to the second question if it’s not optional. Regarding what @dirdigeng said, I think we can use different technology “to ensure equitable shares of limited resources.”

I guess it depends on the interpretation of “Can the data be access by the public without restrictions?”

Do you think that providing your email and then be given access is a restriction?

I can imagine some people:

  • not wanting to provide an email at all
  • providing a fake email
  • wanting to know how their email would be used and why it is being collected.

I can imagine solutions that:

  • ask for an email and then provide a link
  • ask for an email, then send a link to the email provided to verify the email address is correct.

I can see your point @jgkim. You can only have the data if you give me your email could be see as a restriction.

@Mor can we have some expert advice here please? :confused:


Here’s the approach for this year,

I still think that by requiring online registration you’re limiting access and this should be stated somewhere on the index @dannylammerhirt