Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Open Database License

The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement for , granting users royalty-free rights to share, modify, and commercially exploit the database and its contents while mandating that any derivative or collective databases produced from substantial adaptations be distributed under identical terms to preserve openness. Version 1.0 of the ODbL, developed by the and hosted by Open Data Commons, specifically targets database rights—such as the protections under Directive 96/9/EC—distinct from copyrights on individual database elements, which require separate licensing like the Database Contents License for full coverage. Key permissions under the ODbL include copying, distributing, adapting, and creating works from the database worldwide, with requirements for proper attribution, retention of original notices, and share-alike application to modified outputs in machine-readable formats. This structure supports collaborative initiatives by enforcing reciprocal openness, as seen in its adoption by in September 2012, which enabled broader reuse of its crowdsourced geographic database while necessitating a multi-year transition period to relicense contributions and excise non-compliant data. The license's copyleft mechanism has been instrumental in building sustainable repositories but has drawn scrutiny for potential compliance complexities in derivative works and limited interoperability with non-share-alike licenses, prompting discussions on alternatives like dedications for less restrictive data sharing.

History

Origins and Development

The Open Database License (ODbL) emerged from the open data community's recognition that general-purpose licenses like Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA) were ill-suited for factual databases, as they primarily addressed copyright in creative expressions rather than database structures, compilation efforts, or sui generis rights under European law. CC-BY-SA introduced uncertainties in enforcing share-alike obligations for database contents and hindered integration with non-CC-licensed data, potentially allowing proprietary enclosures of publicly contributed factual information without reciprocal sharing. This gap was particularly acute in crowdsourced projects compiling geographic and factual data, where preventing extraction for closed commercial use was essential to sustain community investment. Discussions within the (OSMF) community began in 2005, evolving into a formal decision in 2007 to develop a database-specific license that would leverage , contractual terms, and database rights for robust protection. The OSMF's Legal Working Group led the drafting process, collaborating closely with the (OKF) to address these shortcomings through a tailored framework. This effort prioritized mechanisms to ensure derived works remained open, drawing on principles of reciprocal sharing to safeguard against data hoarding while permitting broad reuse, adaptation, and distribution. Version 1.0 of ODbL was finalized and released on June 29, 2009, under the auspices of Open Data Commons, an OKF initiative dedicated to open database licensing tools. The license's explicitly covered the database as a whole—encompassing its , , and contents—while distinguishing these from individual elements potentially under separate copyrights, thereby enabling clearer legal compliance across jurisdictions with varying protections. This release marked a foundational step in standardizing open licensing for non-creative compilations, informed by iterative feedback to align with practical needs in data-intensive fields.

Adoption by OpenStreetMap

The OpenStreetMap Foundation's Legal Working Group recommended adopting the Open Database License (ODbL) in October 2009, identifying it as the sole open, reciprocal database license with substantial development history to safeguard the project's volunteered geographic data against non-reciprocal exploitation. This proposal initiated extensive community consultations spanning 2010 to 2012, involving discussions on compatibility with prior contributions under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA 2.0) and the need for a license tailored to databases rather than mere contents. The shift addressed CC-BY-SA's limitations in protecting database structures and compilations, which permitted entities to extract and repackage data into proprietary systems without reciprocal sharing of derivatives, thereby threatening the sustainability of OpenStreetMap's collaborative model. Following board deliberations and a structured upgrade timeline—culminating in a deadline for completion by April 2012—the full transition to ODbL occurred on September 12, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. time, with the initial ODbL-licensed planet file released two days later. Prior data remained dual-licensed temporarily to accommodate legacy contributions, but only verified compatible material persisted under the new terms. The adoption necessitated proactive data remediation, including audits to excise incompatible imports—such as those from sources prohibiting derivative databases—and notifications to over 500,000 contributors to affirm or re-license their edits, ensuring the comprised solely ODbL-eligible volunteered information. This process, spanning years of technical and legal preparation, reinforced OpenStreetMap's commitment to perpetual openness while curbing risks from closed derivatives, as evidenced by subsequent stability in data sharing practices.

Transition from Prior Licenses

Prior to September 12, 2012, data was licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA 2.0), which proved inadequate for protecting database rights due to its primary design for literary and artistic works rather than factual databases. In jurisdictions recognizing database rights, such as the , CC-BY-SA offered limited enforcement against extraction and reuse of substantial portions, as factual elements like coordinates and place names often lacked sufficient originality for protection under precedents like Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. The transition to the Open Database License (ODbL) 1.0 was driven by the need to impose obligations on substantial databases, addressing empirical problems of free-riding where commercial entities extracted OSM , made minor enhancements, and deployed closed services without reciprocal sharing. For instance, under CC-BY-SA, improved could be output as non-shareable map tiles, evading obligations to release underlying enhancements, which undermined the collaborative model by allowing exploitation without contribution. ODbL's structure, distinguishing between the database and its contents, enabled clearer enforcement of reciprocity for database-level derivatives while permitting flexible use of individual contents. The switch, completed on September 12, 2012, followed a multi-year development process by Open Data Commons and resulted in approximately 1% from non-assenting contributors, with community efforts to remap affected areas. Since adoption, ODbL 1.0 has remained stable without major revisions through 2025, reflecting its adequacy for database-specific needs despite ongoing discussions about interoperability with 4.0 licenses, which later incorporated database rights but introduced compatibility hurdles like waivers.

Core Provisions

Permitted Uses and Freedoms

The Open Database License (ODbL) version 1.0 grants licensees a perpetual, worldwide, , non-exclusive, and irrevocable to exercise certain freedoms over the licensed database. These include the right to share the database by copying, distributing, publicly displaying, performing, or making it available to the in any medium or , without requiring fees or royalties for such exercises. This permission applies equally to the database's —such as its , tables, and field organization—and extends to extraction and re-utilization of its contents, which consist of factual records or data entries. Licensees are further empowered to create derivative works or collective databases from the original, encompassing the production of adaptations by modifying, transforming, querying, or building upon both the structure and contents. These freedoms facilitate unrestricted access and modification without prior permission from the licensor, distinguishing ODbL from proprietary database arrangements that impose access controls or contractual barriers. Unlike software licenses, which primarily govern executable code, ODbL targets the holistic database entity, treating structure and contents as licensable components to enable broad reusability in applications ranging from analysis to integration. The absence of royalty or fee requirements underscores ODbL's design to lower entry barriers for reusers, permitting commercial and non-commercial exploitation alike under the granted rights. This royalty-free framework aligns with principles, ensuring that the exercise of permissions incurs no direct financial obligation to the database provider.

Obligations and Restrictions

Users of databases licensed under the Open Database License (ODbL) version 1.0, released on March 30, 2009, must comply with specific attribution requirements outlined in section 4.3 when publicly using a Produced Work—a database or derived from the original Database's Contents. This entails including a conspicuous notice informing recipients that the Contents were obtained from the Database and remain available under the ODbL terms, such as: "Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL)." The notice must hyperlink "DATABASE NAME" to the Database's and "Open Database License (ODbL)" to https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/, or provide plain text URIs if hyperlinks are infeasible, ensuring persistent identification and traceability of the source. The ODbL further restricts users from implying endorsement by or with the Database's licensor without explicit permission, a provision aligned with standard practices in open licenses to prevent through conspicuous attribution requirements and notice preservation. Failure to include required notices could otherwise suggest unauthorized sponsorship or connection, though the does not grant rights for such implications. Regarding technical measures, section 4.7 prohibits the imposition of any terms or technological protections that alter, restrict, or are designed to restrict the rights granted under the License, including freedoms to copy, adapt, and share the Database. However, controls such as passwords are permissible if they do not hinder verification of compliance with License obligations or the exercise of granted rights; additionally, a Restricted Database may be distributed alongside an Unrestricted version provided at no extra cost, in an equally accessible format that fully adheres to the License without additional barriers.

Share-Alike Requirements for Derived Databases

The share-alike requirement in the Open Database License (ODbL) 1.0 mandates that any Derivative Database—defined as a database based upon the original, encompassing translations, adaptations, arrangements, modifications, or alterations of its Contents—must be licensed under identical ODbL terms or a compatible later if publicly used. This obligation activates when the Derivative Database incorporates a Substantial Amount of the original Contents, where "Substantial" denotes a meaningful in number, volume, or extent sufficient to invoke database rights protections, determined by reasonable assessment rather than a fixed numerical threshold like 50%. Mere duplication of the whole or Substantial part without substantial new expression does not constitute a Derivative Database, preserving allowances for straightforward replication without triggering . When a Produced Work—such as maps, analyses, or visualizations generated from querying a Substantial part of a Database—is publicly used, the creator must also publicly offer the underlying Database under ODbL share-alike terms, including provisions for recipients to the original Database's data and any components upon request. This extends reciprocity to downstream enhancements, ensuring that through collective effort on cannot be exclusively appropriated, thereby causally upholding the against privatization that permissive licenses permit by lacking such enforced return. The design targets scenarios where derivative efforts build directly on communal inputs, fostering sustained openness without imposing share-alike on isolated or trivial extractions. Exceptions apply to non-Substantial extracts, which fall below the threshold for derivative status and thus evade share-alike entirely, and to Collective Works—aggregations like encyclopedias that integrate Substantial parts without alteration, , or interdependent querying, treating them as distinct from integrated derivatives. Produced Works derived solely from the original Database, without intermediary derivatives, similarly incur no share-alike duty on the source data, allowing flexible outputs like static exports or analyses provided they do not embed modifiable database structures. These delineations balance communal preservation with practical reuse, calibrated to the license's adoption in projects like since 2012.

Legal Foundations

Applicability to Databases and Contents

The Open Database License (ODbL) version 1.0, released in June 2009, governs the use of databases by licensing both the Database Structure—defined as the arrangement, organization, and assembly of data—and the Database Contents, encompassing the underlying data and information, excluding the structure itself. This dual coverage addresses protections available under international copyright law for compilations, where Article 2(5) of the safeguards collections of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias, as intellectual creations based on the originality of their selection and arrangement, without affecting rights in individual constituent works. In jurisdictions recognizing such protections, ODbL thus enables sharing and modification of the database as a whole while imposing obligations on derived works to maintain openness. Factual contents within databases, such as raw data points, generally lack individual protection due to their non-creative nature, as facts themselves cannot be monopolized under standard regimes. However, ODbL extends licensing requirements to prevent substantial extraction or re-utilization of contents that could undermine the database's integrity, particularly in regimes like the Union's Directive 96/9/EC, which grants for original database structures involving substantial intellectual effort in selection or arrangement, and a right protecting against unfair extraction based on the maker's qualitative or quantitative investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the contents. This directive's framework, implemented across EU member states, complements ODbL by allowing licensors to apply the license contractually where or rights do not fully apply, ensuring reciprocal freedoms for users while restricting non-compliant bulk extractions. Licensors are advised to pair ODbL with a separate license for contents if those elements carry uniform rights distinct from the database structure, such as factual data under permissive terms like the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY), to avoid conflating protections and facilitate compliance. The license text specifies no automatic termination upon breach; instead, rights revert to pre-licensed status only after notice and failure to cure, with potential reinstatement upon compliance, thereby balancing enforcement with opportunities for remediation. This structure prioritizes the database's holistic usability while delineating factual elements from protectable compilatory efforts.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Jurisdictional Considerations

The Open Database License (ODbL) enforcement draws on rights, including for original database structure and, where available, database rights for investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting contents, augmented by to impose obligations like requirements. Upon , the license terminates automatically, enabling licensors to pursue judicial remedies such as injunctions against continued use, compensatory damages for verifiable losses, and of profits attributable to violations. These mechanisms apply globally but hinge on local enforceability, with the license specifying under the laws of the where proceedings occur, allowing flexibility in choice of without a fixed governing . Jurisdictional variances create practical hurdles: in the , ODbL aligns with the sui generis right under Directive 96/9/EC, protecting against substantial extraction or repeated insubstantial extractions for 15 years from creation or substantial update, bolstering claims even for non-original factual compilations. In contrast, the lacks a sui generis database right, limiting protection to copyright in creative selection or arrangement, while raw facts remain ineligible for copyright as established in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), where the ruled that unoriginal factual listings in a telephone directory merited no protection, exposing ODbL enforcers to fair use challenges under 17 U.S.C. § 107. This disparity can weaken cross-border enforcement, particularly for U.S.-based users deriving from ODbL-licensed databases like OpenStreetMap's, where contract terms may face scrutiny as shrinkwrap agreements. As of 2025, ODbL has not been adjudicated in major court cases, resulting in untested precedents for interpreting terms like "substantial" extraction or triggers, which fosters reliance on informal compliance tools. For data under ODbL stewardship by the , enforcement emphasizes community reporting of suspected infringements to the Licensing Working Group via [email protected], supplemented by due diligence reviews and detailed FAQs outlining violation scenarios, such as unproduced Database Contents for derived works. Detection challenges persist empirically, as monitoring derived databases often depends on voluntary attribution failures or tip-offs rather than proactive audits, with guidance stressing proactive cures like license reinstatement after 30-60 days of compliance.

Comparisons to Alternatives

Relation to Creative Commons Licenses

The Open Database License (ODbL) draws inspiration from the Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) framework but was specifically adapted for databases and data collections, recognizing that Creative Commons licenses were initially crafted for creative and literary works rather than factual datasets. Released in version 1.0 on June 29, 2009, by the , ODbL incorporates core elements like mandatory attribution and share-alike obligations for derivative databases, while addressing gaps in CC licenses' handling of database rights, such as protections under European law. Creative Commons has advised against applying its non-CC0 licenses to databases due to potential mismatches in scope, prompting the development of database-tailored alternatives like ODbL. A key distinction lies in ODbL's "Produced Works" provision, which permits outputs derived from the database—such as maps, reports, or visualizations that do not constitute substantial databases—to be licensed under compatible terms, including CC-BY-SA, without triggering full on the underlying . In contrast, CC 4.0 licenses, updated to explicitly accommodate database rights (e.g., CC-BY 4.0), apply uniformly to adaptations of the database as a whole, potentially encompassing both structure and contents without such granular separation. This makes ODbL's approach more permissive for end-user applications while enforcing stricter on core database derivatives. Compatibility between ODbL and CC licenses is partial: ODbL data may inform CC-licensed produced works without invoking ODbL share-alike if the output remains non-substantial or non-derivative at the database level, but integrating CC-BY-SA materials into an ODbL database risks incompatibility, as the licenses' share-alike mechanisms do not align seamlessly. Both suites mandate attribution for uses and derivatives, yet ODbL's database-specific clauses prevent the "viral" spread of restrictions to ancillary products, a flexibility absent in standard CC-BY-SA applications to data.

Contrasts with Public Domain Dedications and Permissive Open Licenses

The Open Database License (ODbL) differs fundamentally from public domain dedications such as the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) or Creative Commons Zero (CC0), which waive all rights and impose no obligations on reusers. Under PDDL or CC0, recipients may extract, modify, and commercialize database contents without reciprocity, enabling the creation of proprietary derivatives that do not contribute back to the original community. ODbL counters this by mandating share-alike for derivative databases—those involving substantial extraction or re-utilization—requiring them to be licensed under ODbL or a compatible open terms agreement when publicly used. In contrast to attribution-only permissive licenses like the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY), which permits free sharing and modification with mere credit but lacks , ODbL enforces reciprocity to prevent the enclosure of improvements. ODC-BY allows reusers to produce closed-source derivatives, potentially eroding incentives for ongoing contributions by enabling free-riding, where commercial entities leverage communal data without sharing enhancements. ODbL's provision addresses this causal risk by ensuring that substantial derivatives remain openly accessible, thereby sustaining long-term data openness through enforced communal reciprocity. ODbL's conditional approach empirically safeguards investments in collaborative databases, as evidenced by its adoption in projects requiring sustained openness, though it introduces a compliance burden—such as tracking derivative works and applying compatible licensing—that may deter some reusers compared to unrestricted alternatives. This trade-off prioritizes protection against proprietary lock-in over maximal permissiveness, reflecting a deliberate design to mitigate the erosion of ecosystems under zero-obligation regimes.

Adoption and Applications

Primary Uses in OpenStreetMap

The (OSM) project has licensed its comprehensive planetary database under the Open Database License (ODbL) since September 12, 2012, transitioning from the prior Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license to better accommodate database-specific protections while facilitating open reuse. This shift enabled broader applications of OSM's geographic data, including integration into mobile navigation applications, web-based routing services, and real-time mapping tools that rely on the database's structure for querying and rendering. For instance, developers can extract OSM data to power turn-by-turn directions in apps without initial proprietary restrictions, provided attribution is maintained and share-alike obligations are met for substantial derivatives. In humanitarian contexts, ODbL-licensed OSM data supports rapid mapping during crises, such as the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team's (HOT) efforts to update building footprints and infrastructure post-disaster, as seen in responses to events like the 2020 Beirut port explosion or ongoing conflict zones. These activations involve volunteers adding or verifying features like roads, hospitals, and shelters, which are then freely available under ODbL for coordination by organizations including the Red Cross and , enhancing without data enclosure by any single entity. Derivatives from OSM, such as data exports via the API, must comply with ODbL's distinctions between Produced Works (e.g., static maps from unmodified extracts, requiring only attribution) and Derivative Databases (substantial selections, extractions, or modifications that alter the original structure, triggering share-alike if publicly distributed). queries, which pull subsets like specific networks or points of interest from the ODbL-compliant planet file dating to September 2012, typically qualify as insubstantial uses unless combined with significant edits exceeding trivial thresholds, in which case the modified output database must be released under ODbL or a compatible . This framework has sustained OSM's growth to over 10 billion nodes by August 2025, powering diverse ecosystems while preventing the wholesale privatization of community-contributed geographic knowledge.

Broader Implementations and Community Projects

The Open Database License (ODbL) has seen adoption in collaborative databases beyond primary mapping applications, such as Open Food Facts, a crowdsourced repository of food product information launched in 2012, which applies ODbL to its global dataset to facilitate modifications and derivatives while mandating for produced works. Similarly, , established in 2010 as an open register of worldwide corporate entities, licenses its structured company data under ODbL, enabling free querying and reuse with requirements for attribution and reciprocal licensing of substantial derivatives. Tools integrating ODbL-licensed data, like Nominatim—a free geocoding service derived from infrastructure but adaptable for broader —enforce compliance through usage policies that demand clear attribution and adherence to terms for any derived outputs, such as custom search APIs serving over 1 billion queries annually as of 2023. In humanitarian and contexts, select on platforms like the Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX) employ ODbL for structured information, including flood risk compilations aggregating geospatial and tabular records from multiple contributors, totaling thousands of entries as of 2024, to support response while preserving collaborative integrity via provisions. Adoption in government portals remains sporadic, with examples in initiatives like Open Nepal's since 2014, where ODbL governs address and administrative records to promote without full release. Overall, these implementations highlight ODbL's niche in fostering sustained community contributions to factual , though its clause has constrained scalability in diverse sectors favoring less restrictive alternatives.

Criticisms and Debates

Arguments on Restrictiveness and Commercial Viability

Advocates for the Open Database License (ODbL) maintain that its clause fosters reciprocity in ecosystems by requiring derivative databases containing substantial portions of the licensed material to be released under compatible open terms, thereby incentivizing contributions back to the community and mitigating free-riding by commercial entities that might otherwise extract and enclose volunteer-generated data without enhancements. This approach aligns with principles adapted for databases, ensuring that improvements to datasets like those in benefit the collective rather than enabling one-sided profiteering, as evidenced by community rationales emphasizing protection against non-reciprocal uses. Critics, however, argue that the ODbL's definitions of "Produced Works"—outputs like maps or analyses derived from the database—and the threshold for "substantial" extraction create interpretive ambiguity, as the license lacks precise metrics for determining when obligations apply, such as in cases exceeding an undefined proportion of original data (often heuristically pegged at 50% in discussions). This uncertainty raises compliance risks for businesses integrating ODbL data with proprietary sources, potentially forcing disclosure of competitive assets if a derived product qualifies as a database, leading firms to favor less restrictive permissive licenses to sidestep "viral" propagation of obligations. For instance, commercial users report incurring substantial legal consultation fees to navigate these provisions, deterring adoption and investment in ODbL-licensed projects. Within OpenStreetMap forums and related discourse, reception remains divided: developers often commend the for preserving communal openness against enclosure, while businesses highlight elevated operational costs for tracking data provenance and ensuring threshold avoidance, sometimes opting out of deeper engagement with the .

Concerns Over Legal Enforceability

The Open Database License (ODbL) primarily relies on contractual obligations rather than database rights or protections for raw data, which raises questions about its ability to bind parties who do not explicitly assent to its terms. Unlike , which operates in rem and binds the world to certain restrictions on protected works, contractual licenses like ODbL function , potentially limiting enforcement against third parties who access derivative works without direct agreement. Legal scholars have noted that this structure can complicate requirements, as downstream users might argue lack of privity, though the license text permits original licensors to enforce rights over derivatives they retain interest in. Jurisdictional variances further underscore enforceability debates, with stronger support in the due to Directive 96/9/EC, which establishes a sui generis right protecting substantial investments in database creation regardless of originality. In contrast, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991) rejected broad database protections, holding that factual compilations lacking minimal creativity fall outside copyright, fostering skepticism toward contractual overrides of facts. This divergence may hinder global uniformity, as ODbL's effectiveness could vary by forum, with EU courts more amenable to investment-based claims while U.S. venues prioritize free access to facts. Despite these theoretical risks, no litigated precedents exist for ODbL violations as of 2025, leaving its robustness untested in adversarial proceedings. OpenStreetMap's legal maintains that practical enforcement proceeds through cease-and-desist notices and attribution monitoring, achieving compliance without court intervention in observed disputes. Community discussions emphasize that while litigation absence avoids binding losses, it also perpetuates uncertainty, prompting calls for clearer intent documentation to mitigate interpretive challenges in potential future cases.

Perspectives on Balancing Openness and Protection

The Open Database License (ODbL) embodies a deliberate tension between facilitating broad reuse and enforcing reciprocity to sustain collaborative production, with its clause requiring derivative databases to adopt compatible open terms. This mechanism addresses the risk of free-riding in data commons, where permissive regimes enable extractive actors to appropriate collective efforts without contributing improvements, potentially eroding incentives for ongoing aggregation and of database contents. Advocates for this protective stance, often rooted in recognition of compilations' inherent value as coordinated , posit that ODbL counters enclosure dynamics observed in overly permissive landscapes, such as those under CC0, by mandating shared access to enhancements and thereby preserving the against asymmetric gains by resource-dominant entities. Opposing viewpoints criticize the as paternalistic in intent, arguing it imposes unnecessary barriers that curtail flexible integration with non-open , thereby constraining commercial applications and pathways that thrive on unrestricted remixing. Such restrictions, per these critiques, prioritize ideological purity over pragmatic utility, though counter-evidence from ODbL-governed initiatives indicates no systemic deficit, as reciprocal obligations align with causal incentives for sustained, verifiable collaboration. Empirical patterns reveal a practical skew toward permissiveness: analyses of European open data portals show share-alike licenses like ODbL comprising under 3% of datasets (approximately 37,000 instances), dwarfed by permissive options such as CC BY 4.0 (over 521,000) and CC0 (over 62,000), suggesting user preference for unencumbered access despite the theoretical safeguards ODbL offers against commons depletion.

References

  1. [1]
    Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0
    The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Database while maintaining this same ...
  2. [2]
    Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL)
    Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/Full Legal Text · Summary · FAQ
  3. [3]
    Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) Summary
    To share: To copy, distribute and use the database. · To create: To produce works from the database. · To adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  4. [4]
    OpenStreetMap data license is ODbL
    Sep 12, 2012 · As of 9am (UK time), today, 12 September 2012, OpenStreetMap is now licensed under the Open Database Licence.
  5. [5]
    Licenses FAQ - Open Data Commons
    These sorts of issues suggest one may should be cautious in directly applying, say, Creative Commons licenses to data(bases). In fact, Creative Commons have ...
  6. [6]
    Open Data Licenses – Managing Risks to Maximize the Opportunities
    Feb 16, 2023 · This update on open data licenses discusses the basics, highlights common license types and terms, and raises points to manage associated ...
  7. [7]
    https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable
  8. [8]
    Licence/Historic/We Are Changing The License
    The OpenStreetMap Foundation then cooperated with the independent Open Knowledge Foundation to create the Open Database License 1.0. This was released in ...Missing: origins history
  9. [9]
    Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0 Released
    Jun 29, 2009 · Open Data Commons have released v1.0 of the Open Database License (ODbL), a share-alike license for data and databases.Missing: 1.0 | Show results with:1.0
  10. [10]
    [PDF] 20091006 - LWG - OSMF Member License Change Proposal
    Oct 20, 2009 · The LWG is recommending the Open Database License (ODbL), the only open and reciprocal database license with a (two year+) development history.
  11. [11]
    Why OpenStreetMap Dropped the Creative Commons License
    Jun 27, 2011 · OpenStreetMap founder Steve Coast explains the long and tricky shift from a Creative Commons license to the more data-friendly Open Database ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  12. [12]
    ODbL progress - OpenStreetMap Blog
    Nov 16, 2011 · One item that came out of the board meeting was the deadline to complete the license upgrade by 01 April 2012 and to publish the first ...
  13. [13]
    Licence/About The Licence Change - OpenStreetMap Foundation
    Jul 26, 2022 · On Wednesday September the 12th 2012, we announced the switch to the ODbL licence. The first ODbL licensed planet file was available on the 14th ...
  14. [14]
    10 Years of ODbL - OpenStreetMap Blog
    Sep 14, 2022 · Ten years ago today we changed the license of OpenStreetMap's data. For those who remember it, you'll know it took a lot longer than a day.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Why CC BY-SA is Unsuitable - OpenStreetMap Foundation
    This document attempts to put forward the case for moving away from Creative Commons'. BY-SA license for Open Data. This is not the case for ODbL, ...Missing: transition | Show results with:transition
  16. [16]
    Open Database License - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    Jun 17, 2025 · OpenStreetMap data is made available for reuse under the Open Database License (ODbL) share-alike license for data.
  17. [17]
    Maintenance and future of the Open Data Commons licences
    Jan 16, 2017 · The CC 4.0 licences have been extended to include database rights, making them suitable for publishing open data.
  18. [18]
    https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Making data open legally Creative Commons
    When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer. Open Data Commons. 4. ODC Open Database License (ODbL). Human ...
  20. [20]
    Licence/Licence and Legal FAQ - OpenStreetMap Foundation
    Jul 28, 2023 · The Open Database License, "ODbL" 1.0, is an Attribution and Share-Alike license for Data/Databases. It was developed by Open Data Commons with ...Missing: date motivations
  21. [21]
    Open Data Commons Open Database License v1.0 - SPDX
    The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Database while maintaining this same ...
  22. [22]
    EU copyright law - protection of databases
    Databases in the European Union are protected under EU Law. The Directive on the legal protection of databases was adopted in 1996 and was evaluated in 2018 ...Missing: enforcement | Show results with:enforcement
  23. [23]
    Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. | 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
    The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural in its copyright infringement suit, holding that telephone directories are copyrightable. The Court of ...
  24. [24]
    FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner v. RURAL TELEPHONE ...
    Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas taking the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory, could not ...
  25. [25]
    Open Database License/Implementation Plan - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    The plan is to adopt the Open Database License, with the switch occurring in Phase 5, and the database is believed to be fully compliant.
  26. [26]
    Data - Creative Commons Wiki
    Oct 23, 2019 · CC licenses can be used to license databases. The most recent version (4.0) may be used to license databases subject to copyright and, where applicable, sui ...
  27. [27]
    Can a database include both ODbL and CC BY-SA works?
    Apr 14, 2021 · The CC BY-SA license is incompatible with the ODbL license. The confusing thing about ODbL is that it seems to pertain to entire databases, ...Extent of adapted material "contagion" in Wikipedia style CC BY-SA ...Does every adaptation of a CC BY-SA work violate its terms?More results from opensource.stackexchange.com
  28. [28]
    Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL)
    The PDDL allows free sharing, modification, and use of data without restrictions, placing it in the public domain, and waiving copyright and database rights.
  29. [29]
    https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
  30. [30]
    Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0
    The ODC-By license allows free sharing, modification, and use of a database, with attribution, and covers copyright and database rights, but not individual ...
  31. [31]
    Licence - OpenStreetMap Foundation
    Aug 10, 2021 · Data extracted from OpenStreetMap after September 2012 is licensed on terms of the Open Database License, "ODbL" 1.0, previously it was licensed ...Missing: origins development
  32. [32]
    License/Use Cases - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    Jan 28, 2025 · In a nutshell, ODbL is an attribution, share-alike license which says that if you publish works based on the data, you must attribute OSM, and ...Missing: obligations | Show results with:obligations
  33. [33]
    Filling OSM Buildings Data Gaps for Recovery in Lebanon
    Jan 7, 2025 · With damaged buildings estimated at up to 25% near the southern border, accurate data is needed to plan a humanitarian response. HOT is working ...
  34. [34]
    Missing Maps Project - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    Oct 2, 2025 · Missing Maps is a humanitarian mapping initiative mapping vulnerable areas, founded by the American Red Cross, British Red Cross, MSF and HOT.
  35. [35]
    Overpass API/Installation - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    For the main Overpass API instance, the database was initially built using the first available ODbL compliant planet dump file (September 2012). If you don ...Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
  36. [36]
    Stats - OpenStreetMap Wiki
    In summary · 10 million registered users (2025-Q2) · 10 billion nodes (2025-08-12) · ≈4 million map changes/day (2021-Q4) · 2.25 million different user contributors ...Missing: impressions | Show results with:impressions
  37. [37]
    ODBL License - Open Food Facts wiki
    Sep 26, 2025 · The ODbL License is widely used all around the world, in collaborative or public projects such as OpenStreetMap, OpenCorporates and many others.
  38. [38]
    Nominatim Usage Policy (aka Geocoding Policy)
    Clearly display attribution as suitable for your medium. Data is provided under the ODbL license which requires to share alike (although small extractions ...
  39. [39]
    Flooding Open database license (odc odbl) Humanitarian Datasets ...
    Explore Flooding Open database license (odc odbl) datasets on HDX. Access reliable data to support humanitarian efforts and informed decision making.
  40. [40]
    The Open Database License (ODbL) — What It Is And Why You ...
    Dec 29, 2014 · The Open Database License (ODbL) is one of the most used free licenses for open data globally. It is also the license most used for datasets for Open Nepal.
  41. [41]
    Exploring Open Database Licenses, Fair Code, and Blockchain ...
    May 15, 2025 · The Open Data Commons Open Database License was born from a need to govern and protect data sharing in a way that supports both creativity and ...
  42. [42]
    lxbarth's Diary | The trouble with the ODbL - summarized
    Oct 28, 2014 · Uncertainty as to which jurisdiction's law applies - the ODbL states it will be governed by the laws of the relevant jurisdiction in which the ...Missing: considerations | Show results with:considerations
  43. [43]
    Gary Gale: "Dear OSM, it's time to get your finger out" - GeoHipster
    Apr 27, 2015 · But in 2010, after much discussion and dissent, OSM switched to the data- and database-specific Open Database License. The ODbL maintains the ...
  44. [44]
    (PDF) Licensing Open Government Data - ResearchGate
    PDF | This article focuses on the legal issues associated with open government data licenses. This study compares current open data licenses and argues.<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    [PDF] What's the difference between all those open data licenses? - Fosdem
    Require Share-alike (i.e. derivatives remain under the same license) ... □ a Produced Work from a. Derivative Database. ○ “must offer recipients of ...
  46. [46]
    At the Edge of the License - OpenStreetMap Blog
    Aug 6, 2014 · OpenStreetMap (OSM) is, at its core, a global database of geographic information and has a license, the Open Database License (ODbL), which is designed from ...Missing: vote | Show results with:vote
  47. [47]
    View of Tragedy of the FOSS commons? Investigating ... - First Monday
    So, if over-appropriation is not a problem, is there a potential tragedy of the commons in a FOSS context? Undoubtedly yes. Free-riders in this context are ...
  48. [48]
    Open Data Commons in the age of AI and Big Data
    Oct 23, 2024 · AI is bringing forth new types of capture, appropriation and enclosure of data that limits the realisation of its collective societal value.
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Tragedy of the Data Commons - Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
    Jun 8, 2010 · Because risk is borne by individuals while utility is spread across the entire community, circumstances are ripe for a tragedy of the commons.
  50. [50]
    Choosing a licence for your data - GrainDB
    Creative Commons Licences​​ The rights holder grants advanced permission for the user to reuse, copy, distribute and possibly even modify the original licenced ...
  51. [51]
    None
    ### Summary of License Usage on data.europa.eu Portal