Interpreting the Open Database License

post_below
Fri, 17 Oct 2025 22:03:27 +0000

For reference, here is the ODbL. There is a nice human readable summary. You can also read more in the Wikipedia entry.

The most famous database available under the ODbL is OpenStreetMaps.

I recently found out about OpenCorporates, which is a global database of companies, published under the ODbL. I thought this was great, so I applied for access to use the database for a project. I was denied because I'm not a journalist or a nonprofit and instead was invited to pay for access instead. And it's not cheap, likely because company databases are often used in the B2B space.

I replied that this seemed to be in conflict with their mission, especially given that my project was focused on using the data to create a benefit to the public, and their response was that they wanted to protect against their database being copied.

From my reading, this seems to be in direct conflict with the ODbL. Egregiously so, which has me thinking I'm missing something.

Does anyone have any insight? It seems to me that the whole point of the ODbL license is to make data freely available. This is backed up by interpretations I came across while searching and by the ethos of other orgs using the license, such as OSM. What am I missing?

Edit: I'm still excited to hear from anyone with knowledge in this area, or just general insights into how I'm misunderstanding the license.

And also, having learned that The Open Data Commons, which publishes and maintains the ODbL, uses this definition of the concept of open... I'm leaning towards the interpretation that OpenCorporates wants the aura of using a reputable license with the word "open" in it, but isn't genuinely interested in the ethos. Which is disappointing but not shocking, they'd be far from the first.

Comments URL: https://tildes.net/~tech/1qs2/interpreting_the_open_database_license

Votes: 10

Comments: 6