The Open Definition (formerly Open Knowledge Definition)[1] is published by the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) to define openness for any type of data, content, or other knowledge. The definition's stated purpose is to "[make] precise the meaning of ‘open’ with respect to knowledge".[2] Although it draws philosophically from both the open-source and free software movements, the Open Definition prioritizes license compatibility over copyleft principles requiring derivative works to be released under a free license. The Open Definition contains requirements for content licenses to be considered open licenses, and the OKF maintains a list of compatible licenses. The definition also requires open access, machine readability, and the use of open formats. The OKF's Open Software Service Definition is derived from the Open Definition.
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Open_Content_blue.svg/220px-Open_Content_blue.svg.png)
Background
editThe Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a United-Kingdom-based NGO[3] that began work on the definition in 2006.[4] According to the OKF, the Open Definition is "substantially derivative" of Bruce Perens' Open Source Definition and intends to continue Richard Stallman’s "ideals of software freedom".[2] The Open Definition is itself is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.[5] Although it is similar to David Wiley's ideas about open content, the Open Definition is more specific.[2] It is concerned with freedom of access and reuse, rather than open governance.[5] The definition's stated purpose is to "[make] precise the meaning of ‘open’ with respect to knowledge".[2]
Content
editThe definition (version 2.1) contains the following summary: "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it—subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness".[5][6] The previous version (1.0) stated that "A piece of content or data 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."[5] The new version makes it clear that digital rights management (DRM) technology to reduce openness is not allowed.[5]
The definition contains detailed criteria for open knowledge.[2] In terms of open data, the definition covers the four main aspects:[7][8]
- Open license—see below
- Open access—the full content must accessible for free or for no more than a one-time reasonable reproduction fee, "and should be downloadable via the Internet without charge".[8]
- Machine readability—"The work must be provided in a form readily processable by a computer and where the individual elements of the work can be easily accessed and modified."[8]
- The work must use an open format and be viewable and modifiable "with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool".[8]
As such, the requirements of the Open Definition extend beyond open licensing by also requiring the elimination or reduction of technological barriers and pricing.[9][10]
Licensing
editThe definition lists nine areas in which the license must be open and seven restrictions that may be places on the content.[6] The OKF maintains lists of compatible and incompatible licenses that can be applied to knowledge.[2][6] As of 2017[update], it was recommending, in particular, six licenses.[6] It would be possible to draft a bespoke license that met the definition, but this practice would likely lead to compatibility issues in the event of reuse.[11] With the Open Definition, copyleft provisions—requiring reuse of content to be available under a free license—are allowed but not encouraged. The focus is more on license compatibility.[12] Licenses that are noncommercial-only (prohibiting use of content for financial gain) or do not allow derivative works do not meet the Open Definition.[12][1]
Alternatives
editMost of the community involved in open data supports the Open Definition over competing ones, such as that offered by the technology firm Gartner,[13] and it has become something of a standard. The value it provides is maintaining license compatibility and preventing the openness of data from being reduced by data sharing and reuse policies.[14]
In contrast to some other definitions of open knowledge, the Open Definition requires freedom of reuse as well as freedom of access.[15] Thus, many open access scientific publications do not meet the Open Definition.[16]
Derivatives
editThe OKF's Open Software Service Definition requires that the software service's code be free and open-source software and any non-personal data be available under the Open Definition. Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in.[17]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ a b Greenleaf & Lindsay 2018, p. 494.
- ^ a b c d e f Martin 2022, p. 27.
- ^ Stagars 2016, p. 36.
- ^ Guy 2016, p. 167.
- ^ a b c d e Katz 2022, p. 521.
- ^ a b c d Hamilton & Saunderson 2017, p. 53.
- ^ Stagars 2016, p. 37.
- ^ a b c d Ciclosi & et al. 2019, The Openness.
- ^ Martin 2022, p. 94.
- ^ Węcel 2022, p. 9.
- ^ Hamilton & Saunderson 2017, pp. 53–54.
- ^ a b Lund & Zukerfeld 2020, p. 135.
- ^ Thompson 2023, p. 107.
- ^ Dalla Corte & van Loenen 2022, p. 243.
- ^ Smith & Seward 2020, p. 38.
- ^ Langenkamp et al. 2018, p. 110.
- ^ Katz 2022, pp. 521, 527–528.
Sources
edit- Ciclosi, Francesco; Ceravolo, Paolo; Damiani, Ernesto; De, Ieso Donato (2019). "Assessing Compliance of Open Data in Politics with European Data Protection Regulation". Politics and Technology in the Post-Truth Era. Emerald Publishing Limited. pp. 89–114. ISBN 978-1-78756-984-3.
- Dalla Corte, Lorenzo; van Loenen, Bastiaan (2022). "Open Data and Public Sector Information". Elgar Encyclopedia of Law and Data Science. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 241–252. ISBN 978-1-83910-459-6.
- Greenleaf, Graham; Lindsay, David (2018). Public Rights: Copyright's Public Domains. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13406-5.
- Guy, Marieke (2016). "The Open Education Working Group: Bringing People, Projects and Data Together". Open Data for Education. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9500. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 166–187. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30493-9_9. ISBN 978-3-319-30492-2.
- Hamilton, Gill; Saunderson, Fred (2017). Open Licensing for Cultural Heritage. Facet Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78330-185-0.
- Katz, Andrew (2022). "Everything Open". Open Source Law, Policy and Practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 512–538. ISBN 978-0-19-260687-7.
- Langenkamp, Karin; Rödel, Bodo; Taufenbach, Kerstin; Weiland, Meike (2018). "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research". Publications. 6 (3). MDPI AG: 29. doi:10.3390/publications6030029. ISSN 2304-6775.
- Lund, Arwid; Zukerfeld, Mariano (2020). Corporate Capitalism's Use of Openness: Profit for Free?. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-28219-6.
- Martin, Victoria (2022). The Complete Guide to Open Scholarship. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 979-8-216-06415-2.
- Smith, Matthew L.; Seward, Ruhiya Kristine (2020). "Updating Open Development: Open Practices in Inclusive Development". Making Open Development Inclusive. The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/11635.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-262-35882-8.
- Stagars, Manuel (2016). Open Data in Southeast Asia: Towards Economic Prosperity, Government Transparency, and Citizen Participation in the ASEAN. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-32170-7.
- Thompson, John K. (2023). Data for All. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-63343-877-4.
- Węcel, Krzysztof (2022). Big, Open and Linked Data: Effects and Value for the Economy. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-07147-8.