# How to describe the acceptable terms to receive documentation?

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/how-to-describe-the-acceptable-terms-to-receive-documentation/313>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Tags:** draft\
**Created:** [April 23, 2024, 2:56pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/how-to-describe-the-acceptable-terms-to-receive-documentation/313 "2024-04-23T14:56:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hook](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/hook/32/872_2.png) [@hook](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/hook)\
**Post date:** [April 24, 2024, 8:06am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/how-to-describe-the-acceptable-terms-to-receive-documentation/313/2 "2024-04-24T08:06:20Z")

</div>

# Documentation license

> [@stefano](#):
>
> The issue is with the **documentation** for the components in the class of **Data transparency** : There is no formal definition of “open documentation” and the OSI hasn’t reviewed licenses popular for documentation, like CC-BY. Some of these licenses would comply with the Open Source Definition though, so as @zack [suggested](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-of-working-group-document-review/292/3) before, we should be able to use a term like `OSD-compliant` or `OSD-compatible`

I have concerns about both options:

- _OSD-compliant_ would mean that documentation would need to be under a license that fulfils all ten OSD criteria, and many of those are quite software-specific. This could be tricky, there is a reason why OSI hasn’t approved (m)any non-software licenses thus far.
- as for _OSD-compatible_, it seems a bit ambiguous what that even means. So many proprietary licenses are compatible with so many (non-copyleft) OSD-compliant licenses, that I fear this means almost nothing. (Well, not exactly nothing, as it does mean the documentation license cannot remove the FOSS’ness of the code license, at least.)

Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN) has their own “Open Definition”, which is perhaps the best drafted definition of open data and open content I’ve seen so far:

> **[The Open Definition - Open Definition - Defining Open in Open Data, Open...](https://opendefinition.org)**
>
> The Open Definition - Open Definition - Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge

(There is also the [Definition of Free Cultural Works](https://freedomdefined.org/), based on the 4 freedoms, which used to have quite some traction back in the day, but I haven’t followed its development in ages, to see how it fares nowadays. It seems the definition has not changed much in almost a decade.)

💡 As such, **I propose to adopt _The Open Definition_ from OKFN** for non-code stuff.

# Code license 🔧 ➡ ⚙ ⚙

> [@stefano](#):
>
> I think that for code components we can easily require to be made available under an `OSI Approved License`.

A further complication is whether (for code) we’d also consider licenses that are tagged as:

- non-reusable
- redundant
- superseded
- voluntarily retired
- …

These are technically OSI-approved, just that OSI suggest not to use them.

The new tagging/classification of licenses is a great thing, but it does have consequences, and allows for more finer-tuned policies.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/how-to-describe-the-acceptable-terms-to-receive-documentation/313)._