The Open Definition

[6][7] The previous version (1.0) stated that "A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.

"[6] The new version makes it clear that using digital rights management (DRM) technology to reduce openness is not allowed.

[7] It would be possible to draft a bespoke license that met the definition, but this practice would likely lead to compatibility issues in the event of reuse.

[13] Licenses that are noncommercial-only (prohibiting use of content for financial gain) or do not allow derivative works do not meet the Open Definition.

Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in, which occurs when a company makes it deliberately difficult for users to switch to another service.

He suggests that adding requirements for a fully documented and freely available API and bulk data export could mitigate lock-in.