Conformant license listing

Open Definition
1

The Open Definition page on conformant licenses is probably going to become quite important going forward:

Especially as new “open data” licenses appear to be on the rise. Here is one example from December 2020 from the United Kingdom:

So I suggest the conformant licenses page gets copy‑edited. For instance, the use of “reuseable” in the context of licenses, as opposed to data, should be fixed. That is confusing. Probably “appliable” and “not‑appliable” would be better in this context?

1 Like
2

Hmm, I suppose “reuseable” might be confusing in the context of licenses. “appliable” makes sense but seems a little awkward. Would “general” make sense?

3

“General” is not an attribute but rather a condition or state. So I suggest “Applicable:” be the attribute and “General” and “Official use only” be the two states. Strictly speaking, “Applicability:” would be technically more correct but also more clumsy.

While on the question of conformity, I think the “Current” attribute should be interpreted in a more restrictive manner — but that is another debate for another day …

4

I’m not sure there’s a relevant distinction between an attribute or condition/state here.

However, looking at the page again, I think the prefixed word: before each bullet simply don’t add anything and could be dropped.

1 Like