For reference, here is an extract from my inquiry on a legal forum covering mostly open source software:
Following discussions on the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) discussion forum (see here), an interesting legal conundrum has arisen for open data licensing.
At least one open‑data‑capable license claims material licensed CC‑BY‑4.0 is inbound‑compatible. Indeed this consideration seems to be a relatively common design criteria. That and other licenses include:
- United Kingdom government OGL‑UK‑3.0
- Linux Foundation CDLA‑Permissive‑2.0 (albeit based on hints in the LF press release because not yet listed on the SPDX site and nor has the underpinning legal analysis been made public)
I’ll use the OGL‑UK‑3.0 as an example as the details are fully accessible and a single illustration is sufficient in any case. This discussion is about importing datasets under CC‑BY‑4.0 licensing into other licensing regimes — but excludes objects under or potentially under 96/9/EC database protection for the sake of simplicity.
The OGL‑UK‑3.0 claims that CC‑BY‑4.0 material is inbound-compatible (not possible to cite clauses because nothing is numbered in the legal text) (emphasis added):
These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence.
In addition, the OGL‑UK‑3.0 provides for a choice of law (emphasis added) — which the CC‑BY‑4.0 does not:
This licence is governed by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Information Provider has its principal place of business, unless otherwise specified by the Information Provider.
Turning to CC‑BY‑4.0, section §2.a.5.B states that additional restrictions are prohibited (emphasis added):
No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.
My argument is that constraining the choice of law is a non‑trivial restriction. So although the OGL‑UK‑3.0 claims inbound‑compatibility from CC‑BY‑4.0, there is at least one term‑of‑use that would preclude this action. And there may also be other provisions in conflict too — I did not examine the two licenses side‑by‑side in detail.
So if my analysis stands, the OGL‑UK‑3.0 license will naturally create its own isolated silo. And if my analysis is wrong, the OGL‑UK‑3.0 creates a terminus license in the sense that material transferred from CC‑BY‑4.0 cannot be returned to CC‑BY‑4.0 for more general usage.
Addendum for clarity
In general:
- for collections of data under or potentially under copyright and related rights to be inbound‑compatible, the license on the inbound material must be no more onerous than the license on the receiving material in every respect
- if the license on the inbound material additionally prohibits further restrictions, then the only way that point 1 may be satisfied is if the inbound and receiving licenses are legally identical in every regard
Moreover, a 96/9/EC database is automatically a collection of data so that point 1 is exhaustive.
In some senses, point 2 could be read as a potentially onerous provision under the rationale of point 1 — but because it is entirely non‑specific, it is necessary to separate it out and accord it its own statement of logic.
Based on the above reasoning therefore, the United Kingdom government might well be advised to favor the CC‑BY‑4.0 license over the OGL‑UK‑3.0 license for the public interest information it releases and for the scientific research outputs it funds.