Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 09:27 +0100, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> I've long been meaning to write to the list about the Open Knowledge 
> Definition and Erik's mail has finally prompted me to do so.
> 
> The Open Knowledge Definition (http://opendefinition.org/) was started 
> just over a year and a half ago and went '1.0' in September 2006. It 
> aims to provide a definition of the 'open' in open 
> knowledge/data/content etc.
> 
> It is heavily based on the open source definition and the 
> Budapest/Bethseda/Berlin definition of open access (also, unsurprisingly 
> given the common aims of the Definition of Free Cultural Works and the 
> Open Knowledge Definition, these two definitions are in essence 
> identical.) The formal requirements can be found at:
> 
>    http://opendefinition.org/1.0/

"Conventiently modifiable form" and "availability of source data" is
potentially a big difference.

> Similar to the Free Cultural Works logo there is also a set of logos/web 
> buttons which people can use to label their work as 'open':
> 
>    http://opendefinition.org/buttons

Great, you're most of the way towards my suggestion at
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-April/005384.html :)



Another nit -- you intend this to be used for "open data" but in many
cases data is not copyrightable, so any copyright license granted could
be somewhere between misleading and, er, anti-freedom. :)  As data is so
prominent in the definition you might want to explain this to people.
One attempt is at http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases.html

-- 
  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer