[foundation-board] CKAN licence?

[Ben Laurie]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 24 August 2011 15:55, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It was in the README but got I see it was accidentally removed by
> person doing a docs refactor a couple of weeks ago. Now back:
> <https://bitbucket.org/okfn/ckan>

I am not too concerned about this, but my understanding is that if you
want a licence to apply properly to source you need to mention it in
each source file.

> (A bit confusingly we maintain a github mirror which is not up to date
> and hence contains the licnese text in its README:
> https://github.com/okfn/ckan).
>
>> 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.
>
> Open in relation to us means compliant with Open Source Definition
> which the AGPL does.

This is hardly an answer, as the Apache Licence also does.

> There is a much bigger discussion, which you have
> begun on, around share-alike clauses which I suggest taking up when we
> meet in person :-)

Happy to do so, but that may be some time since I am in Wales for the
next n months. As I suggested before, a phone call might be a good
idea in the interim.

In any case, though, is this not a matter for the whole board?