[okfn-discuss] Is the Open Directory Project open?

[Jonathan]

Thanks for your reply Mike!

I had also been wondering about Section 4. which seems to be the one 
that the FSF took issue with:

  "4. Errors and Changes.  From time to time Netscape may elect to post 
on the page(s) at the URL http://dmoz.org/become_an_editor certain 
specific changes to the Open Directory and/or above attribution 
statements, which changes may be to correct errors and/or remove content 
alleged to be improperly in the Open Directory.  So long as you are 
exercising the license to Open Directory hereunder, you agree to use 
commercially reasonable efforts to check the page(s) at the URL 
http://dmoz.org/become_an_editor from time to time, and to use 
commercially reasonable efforts to make the changes/corrections/deletion 
of content from the Open Directory and/or attribution statements as may 
be indicated at such URL.  Any changes to the Open Directory content 
posted at the page(s) at the URL http://dmoz.org/become_an_editor are 
part of Open Directory."

I suppose the issue hinges on the phrase "commercially reasonable".

I'm still not entirely clear on whether or not this is compatible with 
the OKD (http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0) - specifically, if it is 
not, which section of the definition doesn't it comply with? If it looks 
to be compatible, should it be?

Presumably the fact that the ODP service runs on proprietary software 
doesn't in itself mean that the data can't be open, though it does, 
according to the provisional open service definition, mean the service 
isn't open.

Also if the data is not fully RDF compliant [1] - does this constitute a 
technological restriction to access?

Regards,


Jonathan


[1] See e.g., http://rainwaterreptileranch.org/steve/sw/odp/rdflist.html

> Jonathan wrote:
>   
>> I was recently wondering whether or not the license for the Open
>> Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) is conformant with the Open
>> Knowledge Definition.
>>
>> The license is here:
>>
>>   http://www.dmoz.org/license.html
>>
>> What do people reckon?
>>     
>
> No.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project#License_and_requirements
>
> And FWIW the main software that runs the service isn't free either.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project#Software
>
> But still it was a pioneering open content-esque project.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>
>