Just spotted this: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1123
In particular: > In the past, some people unaffiliated with opencontent.org have taken it upon > themselves to “define the open in open content” and propose artificial > definitions like those described above. The Open Knowledge Definition is one > such attempt, which is an adaptation of the Open Source Definition, which is > itself an adaptation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Wonder if it would be worth responding in a blog post - in particular explaining why OKD exists and what its for? David has always been pro-NC licenses, which is what I suspect this is partly about (NC stuff being 'open'). On an unrelated note he's also involved in Flat World Knowledge - and I think their business model uses NC licenses. http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/our-team -- Jonathan Gray Community Coordinator The Open Knowledge Foundation http://www.okfn.org _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
