[foundation-board] CKAN licence?

Thu Aug 25 09:59:05 UTC 2011

On 25 August 2011 10:46, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
> 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.

That strikes me as concerning. Jordan, can you advise?
>
>> (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?

Or perhaps wider - the Board aspire to limit itself to matters of
legal and financial compliance, and to conduct discussions about
strategy in a way which meaningfully includes the wider community.