[od-discuss] Open Data Buttons

Mon Apr 2 20:12:01 UTC 2012

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 17:09, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> What about the modified themes? A link to a source repository would
>>> make it unambiguous.
>>
>> I bring this thread up again as I just noticed http://annotateit.org
>> (which looks like a great OKF project). The footer includes the open
>> content button, but there's no license that makes it open content.
>
> The issue there is the annotation content is not ours to license (and
> we don't, atm, impose licensing on users -- and probably won't) while
> the content of the site (design, images etc) is openly licensed. I
> guess for the latter we could just use the MIT we are using for the
> code in which case this is, sort of, correct.

This ought be clarified, or the OC button removed. The OSSD button
too, as that requires OC. :) I think it is perfectly fine with both to
exclude 3rd party works, but important to note such.

Filed https://github.com/okfn/annotator/issues/121

>> (Happy to see OSSD button there as well, and link to source, though I
>> don't really understand the point of GPL/MIT dual licensing. But
>> nevermind about that!)
>
> That's because we use some GPL/MIT licensed libraries I imagine.

In that case the project is out of *GPL compliance.
https://github.com/okfn/annotator/blob/master/LICENSE indicates dual
licensing, but obviously *GPL'd libraries can't be offered under MIT.
I do see at least
https://github.com/okfn/annotator/blob/master/lib/vendor/xpath.js
under LGPL. Again, clarification is much needed. If an OKF-sponsored
project can't get open licensing right, how can anyone be expected to?

Submitted an issue https://github.com/okfn/annotator/issues/120

Mike