Yes, there is: the [Open Definition][od](http://opendefintion.org/) defines openness for data (and content). The Definition was produced in 2005, heavily based on the Open Source Definition, and revised minimally since.

[od]: http://opendefinition.org/
[odfull]: http://opendefinition.org/okd/

The key part of the [Open Definition][odfull] states:

> A **dataset** [work] is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following
> conditions, which simultaneously delimit the characteristics of a suitable
> open **license**:
>
> ### 1. Access
>
> The **work** shall be available as a whole and at no more than a
> reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet
> without charge. The **work** must also be available in a convenient and
> modifiable form. The **license** may require the work to be available
> in a convenient and modifiable form.
>
> *Comment: This can be summarized as 'social' openness - not only are
> you allowed to get the work but you can get it. 'As a whole' prevents
> the limitation of access by indirect means, for example by only allowing
> access to a few items of a database at a time. An example of 'reasonable
> reproduction cost' is the cost of a blank DVD required to
> distribute a complete database.*
>
> ### 2. Redistribution
>
> The **license** shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
> the work either on its own or as part of a package made from works from
> many different sources. The **license** shall not require a royalty or
> other fee for such sale or distribution.
>
> ### 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.
>
> *Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of 'viral'
> or share-alike licenses that require redistribution of modifications
> under the same terms as the original.*
>
> ...
>
> ### 7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The **license** must not discriminate against any person or group
> of persons.
>
> *Comment: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the
> maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to
> contribute to open knowledge. Therefore we forbid any open-knowledge
> license from locking anybody out of the process.*
>
> *Comment: this is taken directly from item 5 of the OSD.*
>
> ### 8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The **license** must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in
> a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work
> from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
>
> *Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
> traps that prevent open material from being used commercially. We want
> commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.*
>
> *Comment: this is taken directly from item 6 of the OSD.*

(Disclosure: I helped draft the first version of the Open Definition and have helped curate it since along with other members of the [Open Definition Advisory Council](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/))