Singapore Open Data License



HI All,

As part of GODI work, i am looking at governments licenses. We marked this license as open, even though it was not vetted by the open definition.

I do remember that the Singapore Open Data team did asked about their license in the past, and did do a lot of work to change it. Thoughts on the content and maybe on how we can make sure that government do apply in the process of the Open Definition group? Taiwan is a great example, but also the only one I saw in las months.

CC @dannylammerhirt from the Index team and @pwalsh from the product team.

New research: Understanding the drivers of license proliferation

@herb_lainchbury thought would be good to ping to you as well


And same question about this license from France, that looks good to me…


Hi Mor,

Yep, the French Open Licence from 2011 is fine and along the lines of the ODC-BY.

Although, Etalab is at the present moment trying to enforce new versions that are quite controversial by adding new constraints relative to IP and privacy, and they announced it might take over for all administrative datasets previously published under the Open Licence (read more in french here and there )

If they succeed in this change, lots of french datasets wouldn’t be available in Open Data anymore :frowning:

Things have been changing on a nearly daily basis in the past week and will probably keep so in the coming ones, so it’s a bit hard at the present moment to know what will turn out.



on how we can make sure that government do apply in the process of the Open Definition group?

Could the OK and broader open data communities evangelize doing so whenever a new license comes up? Are there communications or materials missing that would enable this?

As a case in point, @RouxRC are the people drafting the new French licence aware of the OD? I see a blog commenter claiming the new licence is OD conformant at but I haven’t looked to see whether they might be correct.

On the Singapore license:

  • You may grant a sub-licence of the datasets if this is necessary to enable users of your application and/or website (“your Sub-Licensees”), to use your application or access your website.

  • If your Sub-Licensees require additional rights, your application and/or website should direct your Sub-Licensees to obtain the appropriate licence at
    This Licence does not grant any rights to Downstream Sub-Licensees.
    “Downstream Sub-Licensee” means any person who may require a licence in order to access the website or use the application of a Sub-Licensee.
    “Sub-Licensee” means a person that is granted a sub-licence by you, where allowed under this Licence.

I’m not sure how this is intended to work, but it seems an odd mix of intended public licence and terms of service. Can third parties not get a direct license from the licensor without visiting the licensor’s site? If so that’s not one of the acceptable conditions listed in the OD.

Also, this seems superfluous (though maybe it is needed for Singaporean law?) but probably harmless:

Intellectual Property: All datasets are the intellectual property of the Agency.

You cannot enforce any intellectual property rights belonging to the Agency except with the prior written approval of the Agency. Rights of Third Parties: No one other than a party to this Licence shall have any right to enforce any of its terms.



I think this is a broader question to the whole Open Definition board: Do you want to evangelise the Open Definition? Currently, as I see it, besides putting the Open Definition everywhere we can at OKI (I believe it is on all of our websites footers), I myself am not aware of any intentions of the group to do so.

I think GODI is a great place to see all these different variations of Open Government Data licenses, and it will be good to get the group’s opinion on the various licenses since GODI methodology is based on the open definition.

More than that, since I am not a big expert on copyright: Shouldn’t we ask governments just to go with Creative Commons? (I have a feeling this will open a new can of worms…)

On the Singapore license, maybe @alyssaluo can help to clarify the sub-licenses?



also @mlinksva - see @alyssaluo latest forum question about their license : Drafting exception clauses in our License