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

Wed Aug 29 20:05:20 UTC 2007

On 8/29/07, Jonathan <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> wrote:
> 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?

If it conflicted with the OKD at all, it would presumably conflict
with (3) Reuse, which requires that the license allow for
modifications. I realize that I have in the past assumed that both OKD
and OSI definitions require that the license must allow for *any type*
of modification, but neither definition actually has language that
would require that.

> 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.

Right.

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

If perfect standards compliance is a requirement for OKD openness
we're in trouble :)

Luis