Did you consider using an existing license when releasing this dataset?

[b5]

First & foremost, thank you so much for publishing this dataset. Your commitment to opening this data in a time of need is so helpful. I can imagine there was more than a little red tape involved in getting this data clear of your legal department & out in the open.

Given that this dataset comes with a custom license, clearly some thought was put into the subject. With that in mind, would you care to comment on why you chose to go with a custom license, and not an existing open data license?

Thanks again, now I'm off to go purchase a subscription to the Times.

[albertsun]

@b5 thanks for your question, and for being a subscriber.

We've today updated our README.md to clarify that we consider the license we've published this data under is co-extensive with the Creative Commons By Attribution Non-Commercial license.

Our legal department did consider using that license directly, but decided to instead provide a shorter, simpler license in friendlier language. We believe that that license is easier to understand and use for the many users of this data (local media, non-profit organizations, scientists, etc) who are not already familiar with the open source software and licensing community.

For those who are familiar with that, you should feel free to use this data under the same terms as the CC BY-NC license.

Hope that explanation helps.

[johanricher]

Thanks @albertsun for your answer and, it goes without saying, for the absolutely great work you and your team have been doing with this project. I, for one, salute you for it.

Nevertheless:
The first point is that Creative Commons licenses are undoubtedly the simpler ones for everyone. However long is the actual text of those licences, they've become so standard that everybody knows what they entail, just by reading "CC0" or "CC-BY-SA". All sorts of interfaces, such as Github's choosealicense.com also do an excellent job of translating them in simple terms for users, e.g.:

• https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc0-1.0/
• https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc-by-4.0/
• https://choosealicense.com/licenses/cc-by-sa-4.0/

The second point is that "CC BY-NC" is just not an open license, period. It's a restrictive license and, under it, your data unfortunately stays unopen.

[cipriancraciun]

@albertsun, I'm no lawyer, but to my knowledge, what is written in the LICENSE file is the actual "word of the law". What is written in the README is more-or-less a "guideline", thus by just saying "treat the license as CC BY-NC" in that file doesn't count as "this dataset is released also under CC BY-NC".

Therefore I would suggest amending the LICENSE file to add those words from the README, i.e. this license is co-extensive [...].

---

Moreover what does co-extensive actually mean? It's the first time I've seen this in a license... Looking on the internet it appears to mean "having the same limits". If that is the case why not write exactly that this license provides the same rights and requires the same limitations as [...].

@johanricher is right about the "universality" of Creative Commons licenses, and this co-extensive wording is the living proof... :)

[virtadpt]

How much of this is due to what the NY Times' legal department told them to use?