I would also point out that the Open Knowledge Definition is very similar to the definition of ‘open-access’ as found in the BBB (Berlin, Budapest, Bethseda) declarations though, perhaps, with more emphasis on reuse and modifiability (I have had substantial discussion about the OKD, and its relation to open-access, with Peter Suber who like, Stevan, is a prominent Open-Acess advocate). In particular, the OKD and the BBB definitions share the requirement that there must be freedom to access, redistribute and reuse a work.

In addressing Stevan Harnad’s comments I would like start by distinguishing between a) providing a definition of ‘open’ (or ‘open-access’ or ‘free’ — note these may all mean different things) b) campaigning for a particular piece of knowledge to be ‘open’ (or ‘open-acess’ or …). Though the Open Knowledge Foundation — and Stevan Harnad — are engaged in both types of activity it is important to remember they are separate. Furthermore the OKF do not believe that **all** knowledge **must** be made open.

The aim of the open knowledge definition (and the ‘Three Meanings’ article cited above) was to set out clearly what one meant by ‘open’ knowledge. It does not seek to mandate what should and should not be open knowledge and it does not, for example, require that for an academic article to be termed ‘open’ it must also make its data available — the definition focuses only on the work itself.

Do journal articles need different treatment from other forms of knowledge? ‘Open-Access’ has traditionally focused on academic journal articles — this was one reason for creating a more general defintion of ‘open knowledge’ — and as Stevan points out journal articles may be differnet from other forms of knowledge such as raw experimental data. However I am not sure why this means you can’t use a common defintion of ‘open’. Even if reuse of journal articles is less frequent than for data it **does** happen so why not ensure that it is allowed?

My quote ends at but in an online digital supplement
only, rather than in the paper edition.� .

Starting with The following is an effort by the Open Knowledge Foundation to define diferent meanings of ‘open’: , the words (and thoughts) are no longer mine. Indeed, the words and thoughts are exactly the ones I try to argue against in my own quote, because they conflate the OA and OKF sense of “open” and “free”!

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum