[foundation-board] CKAN licence?

[Jordan S Hatcher]

On 25 Aug 2011, at 10:59, Becky Hogge wrote:

> 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?

You do not have to have it in each source file to apply.

It is good practice to make sure that people know what the license is that applies though. 

Many people choose to put a note in the header of each file of what the license is under, though typically just to clarify you don't put the whole thing in there (because it just bloats the code).  BSD is short enough that some people do this..

README.txt or LICENSE.txt  or COPYING.txt are all examples of where people put licenses. Neither option makes a difference other than usability.

Jordan

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

More at: <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
Co-founder:  <http://www.opendatacommons.org>
Open Knowledge: <http://www.okfn.org/>