OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

The detailed definition ( http://opendefinition.org/1.0/ ) is flawed
because it has some limits on the free use of the knowledge in
question.

Despite its laudable goal of providing a basic standard, its terms
still prohibit some usage, and thereby fundamentally contradict with
the goals of free and open knowledge.

For example, 3. Reuse
"The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and
must allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original
work."
This is clearly a restriction of knowledge and information, since by
definition any terms are a limitation.

Again, 5. Attribution
"The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use
the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work."
Here there is another condition imposed on the use of the knowledge.

There are numerous examples, but the the root problem is that all
prohibitions contradict the basic definition  "A piece of knowledge is
open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."

Any limits on the use, reuse, changes, etc. is a restriction on the
freedom to use that knowledge, and so is contrary to the idea of open
knowledge.