Version 2.0dev?
The Open Definition makes precise the meaning of "open" with respect to data and content, promoting a robust knowledge commons in which anyone may participate and innovate, and in which barriers to interoperability among pools of data and content are minimized.
Summary: Data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.
This essential meaning is the same as that of "open" with respect to software, contained in the Open Source Definition, and is synonymous with "free" or "libre"; see the Definition of Free Cultural Works. The Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source Definition, which in turn was derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
The term work will be used to denote the item or piece of knowledge which is being transferred.
The term license refers to the legal terms 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).
A license is open if its terms satisfy the following conditions:
The license must irrevocably grant the following permissions.
The license must allow use of the licensed work for any purpose.
The license must allow redistribution of the licensed work, including sale, either on its own or as part of a collection made from works from many different sources. The license must not require a royalty or other fee for such sale or distribution.
The license must allow creation of derivatives of the licensed work, and must allow the derivatives to be distributed under the terms of the original licensed work.
Comment: Conditions may be placed on this permission, as described below. Common conditions include 'copyleft' or share-alike requirements that require redistribution of modifications under the same terms as the original.
The license must allow any part of the work, or the whole of it, to be used, distributed or modified separately from any other part of the work, or from any collection of works in which it was originally distributed.
The license must allow the licensed work to be distributed along with other distinct works, with no restrictions placed on these other works.
The license must allow use, redistribution, modification and compilation, by any person or group of persons, for any purpose. These rights must apply independently of other legal agreements, without any obligation to agree to additional terms.
LV: On re-reading, I'm not sure the "independently of other legal agreements"
is quite right; it is broader than the old equivalent language and would
prohibit (say) CC 4.0, which reserves rights not explicitly included in the license.
(kfogel added this as a suggestion, on 2013-12-03)
The license must allow private study, use, and modification in the absence of any form of distribution. The license may name certain requirements as conditions for distribution, but the license must not compel distribution itself.
In other words, if a license requires share-alike style redistribution, the sharealike
terms must not compel distribution in the first place. If someone distributes at all,
it is reasonable to require that they not place obstacles in the way of downstream
recipients, and even reasonable to require certain forms of active cooperation (e.g.,
the AGPL's view that accessing functionality via a network is a form of distribution).
However, if someone does *not* distribute at all, then the license must not compel it.
The reasons for this are probably obvious, but if pressed for a reference about the
importance of privacy, I guess I'd point to the first paragraph in which the word
"privacy" is used in http://snowdenandthefuture.info/PartIII.html.
The license may condition the permissions granted in Section 3.1 on compliance with the following conditions. Other conditions are not generally permitted if they meaningfully limit or otherwise impact the permissions required in Section 3.1.
The license may require that contributors and creators of a licensed work be attributed in distributed versions of the work. If this condition is imposed it must not be onerous.
LV: "onerous" is vague.
KM: Still maybe not quite there, but perhaps something along the
lines of "If this condition is imposed, it must not unnecessarily
burden the use of alternative formats or alternative means of distribution".
The license may require that modified versions of a licensed work must carry a different name or version number from the original work, or otherwise indicate what changes have been made.
LV: We should consider broadening to cover everything related to
trademarks, in line with recent licenses. (Same issue was noted
by Stefano Zacchiroli in his email to us.)
The license may require the work to be available in a conveniently modifiable form. The license may prohibit technological restrictions.
NB: This section is still completely a work in progress, and may or may not be adopted.
Licenses with the following characteristics help the open ecosystem by maintaining interoperability and avoiding high costs. (If AC and approval are mentioned in this document, might say we don't approve licenses not following these recommendations.)
Not specific to an organization or jurisdiction.
With? Should some license(s) be baked in?
Something about granting rights to something substantial and clear? eg not only game rules
If AC has to debate what license really means, it isn't understandable. Is there some way to express this generally?
A specific work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following conditions:
The work must be available under an open license, as defined above, and recipients of the work must be clearly and unambiguously notified of the license. Any additional terms accompanying the work (such as a terms of use) must not contradict the terms of the license. Any additional information necessary for license compliance (such as names of contributors required for compliance with attribution requirements) should also accompany the work.
The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloadable via the Internet without charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form. The license may require the work to be available in a convenient and modifiable form. The work must be clearly presented as available under the license.
Comment: This can be summarized as 'social' openness - not only are you allowed to use, modify, and share 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. An example of 'reasonable reproduction cost' is the cost of blank media or bandwidth required to distribute a complete database. 'Clearly presented as available' means that both the license and the means of access are clear and unambiguous on which works the rights attach to.
The work must be provided in such a form that there are no technological obstacles to the performance of the licensed rights. 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.
LV: not clear that "open data formats" are necessarily technologically
unencumbered (I know of at least three "open" DRM standards).
LV: It might make sense to link, at least in a comment, to an open
standard definition; e.g., http://opensource.org/osr
KM: We should have a discussion about this on-list, but I'm thinking
it could be useful to have some softer **should** conditions regarding
archiving, metadata, use of open standards, availability of APIs, etc.
- review http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ and make any necessary changes there
- should works section come first? it's shorter, less obscure, and contextualizes/motivates (or could/ought) licenses
- LV: I think not; we're not ever going to be in the business of certifying works, and it will always have to refer to licenses. If it should be moved anywhere, I'd put it in a different document.
- most of the explanatory comments are gone. maybe the remaining ones should too, and each point be fully self-explanatory
- LV: That should certainly be a goal.
- address non-revocability/perpetual license explicitly? added "irrevocably" before "grant the following permissions".