[od-discuss] Open Data Buttons

Tue Apr 3 13:26:58 UTC 2012

On 2 April 2012 21:12, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> 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.

We should definitely clarify. The OSSD does state:

<quote>
Whose data is open as defined by the Open Knowledge Definition with
the exception that where the data is personal in nature the data need
only be made available to the user (i.e. the owner of that account).
</quote>

Personal in nature is a bit ambiguous here. Should OSSD only be those
where truly personal data is private as opposed to those whose data
that is publicly available but not openly licensed?

> 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.

Indeed. But the license in the project is never about licensing the
libraries we hvae used it is about licensing "our" contribution.

> 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?

I'm not sure how licensing is wrong here. (And perhaps this should
move to issues on specific projects as you have been doing :-) )

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

Brilliant.

Rufus