“An open format is one that is platform independent, machine readable, and made available to the public without restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information”.
Anyway, saying that a format is not open because of restrictions on its use is in my opinion (some what) equal to saying that something is not FOSS because of the license they use. For example if you use GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3), anyone copying your work must also use the same license.
It would not be an open format if I had to pay for its use. It would be open if I can use it without cost but have to provide what I use it for with the same restrictions.
Open as far as I know is not defined by law anywhere, it will be up to opinion in the end. Having a different opinion and thus having a different definition of a word makes communications more difficult, so agreeing on the meaning is preferred.
TIL there are definitions for what constitutes an open format, at least in the US (US government).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format
Anyway, saying that a format is not open because of restrictions on its use is in my opinion (some what) equal to saying that something is not FOSS because of the license they use. For example if you use GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3), anyone copying your work must also use the same license.
It would not be an open format if I had to pay for its use. It would be open if I can use it without cost but have to provide what I use it for with the same restrictions.
Open as far as I know is not defined by law anywhere, it will be up to opinion in the end. Having a different opinion and thus having a different definition of a word makes communications more difficult, so agreeing on the meaning is preferred.
What do you think?