[od-discuss] Is the OWFa an open licence?

[Luis Villa]

Note that there are a variety of things under the OWF umbrella, so it
is important to distinguish them all, but yes, they should all be open
in all reasonable senses.

Note, though, that they are primarily intended for specifications
rather than code or data, so it isn't clear that they would fall under
this group's scope.

[Full disclosure: I am counsel to OCP, and was very mildly involved in
the drafting of OWF.]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I just added the Open Compute Project to the FOSsil Bank (see it here). Some
> of its content is available under the Open Web Foundation Final
> Specification Agreement, which is an attribution licence with the promise
> not to sue for patent violations added in (see it here). As far as I can
> tell, this is a free/libre/open licence, but it's not listed as a compliant
> licence in the Open Definition. I tried searching the web to see what said,
> but because it's got open in the title it's hard to get results.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> Chris Sakkas
> Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and Twitter feed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>