[od-discuss] [OTT-GOSLING] They gave us Lady Gaga; we gave them the Open Government Data Camp

Thu Nov 11 22:54:17 UTC 2010

Dear Richard,

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org> wrote:
>    Have you seen our definition of open data which we've been busy
>    building consensus around for several years?
>
>      http://www.opendefinition.org/
>
> It isn't feasible for me to browse a web site--could you email me the
> actual text of the definition?

The text is inline below. Any thoughts/comments would be warmly appreciated.

All the best,

Jonathan

---

The Open Knowledge Definition v1.0

## Terminology

The term knowledge is taken to include:

  * Content such as music, films, books
  * Data be it scientific, historical, geographic or otherwise
  * Government and other administrative information

Software is excluded despite its obvious centrality because it is
already adequately addressed by previous work.

The term work will be used to denote the item or piece of knowledge
which is being transferred.

The term package may also be used to denote a collection of works. Of
course such a package may be considered a work in itself.

The term license refers to the legal license under which the work is
made available. Where no license has been made this should be
interpreted as referring to the resulting default legal conditions
under which the work is available (for example copyright).

##The Definition

A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following conditions:

1. Access

The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a
reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet
without charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and
modifiable form.

Comment: This can be summarized as ’social’ openness – not only are
you allowed to get the work but you can get it. ‘As a whole’ prevents
the limitation of access by indirect means, for example by only
allowing access to a few items of a database at a time.

2. Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the work either on its own or as part of a package made from works
from many different sources. The license shall not require a royalty
or other fee for such sale or distribution.

3. Reuse

The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and must
allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original work.

Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of ‘viral’ or
share-alike licenses that require redistribution of modifications
under the same terms as the original.

4. Absence of Technological Restriction

The work must be provided in such a form that there are no
technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities.
This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data
format, i.e. one whose specification is publicly and freely available
and which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use.

5. Attribution

The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use
the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work. If this
condition is imposed it must not be onerous. For example if
attribution is required a list of those requiring attribution should
accompany the work.

6. Integrity

The license may require as a condition for the work being distributed
in modified form that the resulting work carry a different name or
version number from the original work.

7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Comment: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the
maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to
contribute to open knowledge. Therefore we forbid any open-knowledge
license from locking anybody out of the process.

8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
research.

Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want
commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

9. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
license by those parties.

10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Package

The rights attached to the work must not depend on the work being part
of a particular package. If the work is extracted from that package
and used or distributed within the terms of the work’s license, all
parties to whom the work is redistributed should have the same rights
as those that are granted in conjunction with the original package.

11. License Must Not Restrict the Distribution of Other Works

The license must not place restrictions on other works that are
distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license
must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium
are open.

Comment: Distributors of open knowledge have the right to make their
own choices. Note that ’share-alike’ licenses are conformant since
those provisions only apply if the whole forms a single work.

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://blog.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg
http://identi.ca/jwyg