[foundation-board] CKAN licence?

[Ben Laurie]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM, James Casbon <casbon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Its AGPL it's in the README, I was handicapped by trying to use my phone.

Well. That leads to two questions:

a) Which README? Not the one in the source repo.

b) Why the AGPL? Yes, I realise this could be a long conversation, so
let me open with my extreme preference for the Apache Licence. Why?
Because to me "open" means "you can use it for any purpose". The AGPL
is not a licence that supports that. There's a longer argument which
is about barriers to adoption and the value of non-coerced
contribution.

>
> On 24 August 2011 12:05, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>> I was discussing licensing with James last week and this led to
>> wondering what licence CKAN is published under.
>>
>> James couldn't find one.
>>
>> I just looked and I can't find one either. It's also pretty damn hard
>> to track down the source.
>>
>> I am bemused - what licence is it under, and why does it not seem to
>> appear in the source tree at all? Or, indeed, anywhere else?
>>
>> I see it says contributions are welcome: have there been any? Is there
>> a Contributor Licence Agreement?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-board mailing list
>> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>