Decentralised News · Agentic Finance · Decision research
By Heath Muchena · Source review 2026-11-11 · Instrument version 1.0.0
What Matters
A data licence applies to particular material, rights and uses. Combining two sources can expose conflicts in commercial use, adaptation, redistribution, attribution or database obligations. DN’s worksheet records those conflicts against one intended output. It preserves unresolved questions and source clauses; a complete form is an evidence packet for a decision, not automatic legal clearance.
The commercial question is precise: can this buyer deliver this output, to these recipients, using these inputs? A folder marked “open data” does not answer it. Neither does a paid invoice. The answer changes when an internal comparison becomes a customer-facing API, when a chart is replaced by downloadable rows, or when a separate collection becomes an integrated database.
This article examines a bounded set of published licence texts and provides a workflow for tracing obligations. It does not decide the status of an unidentified dataset, infer permission from silence, or treat every technical transformation as a legally relevant adaptation.
Write the deliverable before comparing licences: “a public supplier directory with downloadable records,” “an internal dashboard for six employees,” or “a paid report containing three charts.” Specify the audience, delivery method and whether a recipient can reconstruct substantial underlying material. These descriptions are more useful than a generic label such as AI use.
These are review categories, not five universal bans. A conflict may be resolved by changing the output, selecting another source, retaining separate components, or obtaining an additional permission. A documented exception or limitation may also matter. Record the basis instead of asking a language model to improvise a legal conclusion from a licence name.
Before a team merges any rows, retain source identifiers. If a problematic input cannot be separated later, the cost of removing it can exceed the cost of checking its terms at acquisition.
DN Evidence Block
Sources reviewed: 2026-11-11 · Evidence type: Primary licence texts and their publishers’ explanatory guidance.
Scope: CC BY 4.0, BY-SA 4.0, BY-NC 4.0, BY-ND 4.0 and ODbL 1.0; one specified combination and distribution route at a time.
- Claim: two licences with similar names can be treated as interchangeable. Evidence: their permission and condition clauses differ. Capture the exact version and licensed asset.
- Claim: putting files together always triggers ShareAlike. Evidence: Creative Commons distinguishes collections from adaptations; the use and applicable law matter.
- Claim: a database licence clears every item inside it. Evidence: the ODbL preamble separates database rights from individual contents.
Not established by this work: No private supplier contract, rights ownership, statutory exception or jurisdiction-specific dispute has been adjudicated. Example scenarios are hypothetical.
Original DN instrument · version 1.0.0
DN Licence-Compatibility Worksheet
Record one intended output, two input licences and five review outcomes. The tool flags conflicts and missing decisions; it does not issue legal clearance.
Enter your assumptions or load a labelled example. Required blank numbers stay missing; unknown evidence remains unknown. Use nonpersonal labels only. This instrument makes no network requests and uses no persistent browser storage.
Use your own inputs
No current result. Complete inputs or load an illustrative example.
Manual triage only. No contract fetching, licence inference, legal opinion or statutory-exception analysis. A documented answer can still be wrong; review the underlying evidence.
1. The intended commercial purpose is outside the grant
CC BY-NC 4.0 defines its noncommercial condition by reference to commercial advantage or monetary compensation. A business should not equate “we are not selling the original file” with compliance. Describe the actual use, revenue connection and recipients, then document the conclusion for that use.
Consider a hypothetical research team that buys Dataset A for internal analysis and downloads Dataset B under terms that allow commercial redistribution. The second source cannot enlarge the first source’s permission. If the intended product exposes A’s licensed material, the internal-use restriction still needs resolution. That conclusion comes from the stipulated contract in this example, not from a finding about any named supplier.
2. The proposed modification and sharing exceed the adaptation right
A different question arises under CC BY-ND 4.0. Its grant permits producing and reproducing adapted material but does not grant the right to share it. The text also permits necessary technical modifications. A format conversion and an adaptation are therefore not interchangeable labels. Applicable exceptions remain separate from the licence grant.
Decision check: describe the transformation and the recipient, then assess the applicable text. Changing a file format, compiling a collection, publishing an adaptation and exposing a derivative database are not interchangeable labels. Preserve the source and the reasoning rather than relying on a licence badge alone.
3. Downstream distribution terms conflict with an input’s conditions
CC BY-SA 4.0 applies conditions when adapted material is shared, including requirements for the adapter’s licence and restrictions on additional terms. Its database provisions also address substantial contents used in another database where the specified rights apply. These are reasons to identify the output structure; they do not establish that every aggregation is an adaptation.
For a proposed commercial product, draw a simple inventory: original source, transformed intermediate, published output and any downloadable companion file. At each stage, record what moves to another party. Avoid resolving an uncertain classification by changing a filename from database to report.
One practical design response is to keep independently licensed resources identifiable and expose only the output that has been reviewed. That is an architectural option, not a guaranteed cure. It fails if the actual integration or onward use still triggers obligations that the product cannot meet.
The decision to sell should include the cost of compliance. A licence that permits the product can still require a provenance page, an export mechanism or a different customer agreement. Those are product costs that procurement should know before pricing.
4. Required attribution and notices disappear in the pipeline
CC BY 4.0, section 3 sets attribution conditions for sharing, including retaining supplied identification and notices, indicating modifications and providing the licence reference. It allows compliance in a reasonable manner suited to the medium and context. A compact API response can therefore point to an appropriate attribution resource where that method satisfies the conditions; deleting the information entirely is a different choice.
Build a provenance record beside the research record. Useful fields include source asset ID, retrieval date, licence version, covered rights, excluded material, required attribution, transformation notes and the person who checked the intended use. Keep commercial permission and evidence freshness in separate fields. A current answer can be unlicensed, and a properly licensed answer can be stale.
Test a representative export. Can a customer receiving the JSON find the source notices without your original spreadsheet? Can they identify which rows came from which supplier? Does a report show the required notice in the form reviewed? Record the answer with a sample output, not merely a promise that the pipeline adds metadata somewhere.
5. Database permission leaves individual-content rights unresolved
Under ODbL 1.0, sections 4.4–4.6, public use of a derivative database can bring ShareAlike and access obligations. The text distinguishes derivative databases, collective databases and produced works, with specific limits. A picture generated from a database and a new database assembled from its contents deserve separate analysis.
A rights gap should travel with the record. If a third-party image is outside the source provider’s grant, marking the whole package “licensed” hides the unresolved item. Exclude it, replace it, or obtain the required permission before treating that delivery as cleared.
Decision check: identify the rights layer for each input. A database grant may address extraction or reuse without granting every copyright, confidentiality or privacy permission relevant to an individual item. Keep a third-party exclusion attached to that item and obtain appropriate review where the intended use is consequential.
Methodology, limitations and corrections
DN reviewed the linked primary texts on 11 November 2026 and mapped their distinct permission and condition concepts into five procurement questions. The worked scenario is synthetic. No legal status is inferred for an actual customer, supplier or dataset. The tool stores no information on a server; downloaded records contain the user’s inputs and a mechanical tally of review states. Material licensing decisions require review against the exact documents, intended use and applicable law.
Commercial use and modification are different questions
The worksheet asks reviewers to record a clause and an explanation. “Paid for” is not a clause. “The vendor said it was fine” is incomplete without the message, sender’s authority and the exact use described. If the business changes from producing a report to selling a query endpoint, repeat this review.
Use the worksheet as a release decision packet
The DN Licence-Compatibility Worksheet evaluates five review categories using three states: documented as compatible for this use, conflict identified, or unresolved. It counts the states and lists the categories needing attention. It does not parse a licence URL, inspect a contract or convert a user’s assertion into independent verification.
Start with the exact output and the two input records. For each category, attach the clause, any permitted exception, and the reasoning. A reviewer can mark a category compatible only for the use being assessed. The tool’s all-documented result means the supplied record is complete enough for human review; it is not a certification of lawful use.
A useful release packet ends with a concrete choice: proceed on a reviewed basis, change the delivery, replace an input, seek an additional licence, or hold. Give each unresolved item an owner and a deadline tied to the launch. A sales commitment made before a missing redistribution permission is resolved creates a problem the engineering team cannot fix by hiding the download button.
Reopen the packet when inputs, recipients, purpose, terms or output structure change. Keep the previous version because an old deliverable may still need its original provenance. This creates a reviewable history of what the business believed it could supply and which evidence supported that decision.
For corrections, identify the claim, source and date when contacting Decentralised News. A new record-creation timestamp does not refresh its underlying evidence.
Change log: version1.0.0, 2026-11-11. Initial documentation review, original instrument and labelled examples.
Frequently asked questions
Are two open licences always compatible?
No single answer applies to every combination. Identify the licensed material, the relevant rights, whether the use creates an adaptation or derivative database, and what will be shared. A collection can have a different analysis from an integrated output.
Does buying a dataset allow resale?
The purchase price does not establish the scope of the grant. Read the applicable contract and any schedules for the intended recipients, outputs and delivery method.
Does the worksheet approve a licence combination?
No. It records the reviewer’s conclusions and highlights conflicts and unresolved categories. It does not independently interpret or verify the input documents.
When should the review be repeated?
When the sources, licence versions, recipients, commercial purpose, output structure or distribution route change. Preserve the older record for deliverables made under that review.
Primary sources
- CC BY 4.0 legal code. Attribution and notices; scope of licensed rights. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
- CC BY-SA 4.0 legal code. ShareAlike and database-specific provisions. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
- CC BY-NC 4.0 legal code. Definition and scope of noncommercial use. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
- CC BY-ND 4.0 legal code. Sharing adapted material versus permitted technical modifications. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
- Creative Commons FAQ. Collections, adaptations and combining licensed material. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
- ODbL 1.0. Database/content distinction and derivative/collective/produced-work obligations. Reviewed 2026-11-11.
Turn the finding into a decision
For a consequential research purchase, ask the DN Research Desk to scope one bounded evidence brief: the specified output, source documents, missing permissions and questions requiring specialist review. Scope, availability and price must be agreed before work begins. This article does not establish new DN licence terms or promise a legal clearance service.
Related DN research
Disclosure: Analysis and instrument results are editorial. Where labelled affiliate links appear, DN may receive compensation when you sign up or buy through them. Commercial relationships do not determine findings. No tested integration or guaranteed outcome is implied.
