[okfn-help] Openness ticks/crosses on CKAN

[Rufus Pollock]

2009/8/8 Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>:
> I have been wondering about the 'openness' ticks/crosses on CKAN. I
> notice that when a package is openly licensed, but not available for
> bulk download a single red cross shows up for 'no bulk download' but
> there is no corresponding green tick for openness (as there has been
> in the past). Also the cross shows up next to the word 'openness',
> implying that the package is not open (even though it may be openly
> licensed).
>
> Not sure whether:
>  (i) this is accurate - and absence of bulk downloadability
> constitutes non-compliance with the OKD, e.g. violates requirement to
> be able to access work as a whole as specified in point 1. or
> requirement that there is an absence of technological restriction
> specified in point 4. In this case there must be a distinction between
> putting a work under an open license and full OKD compliance?

Yes, I think there is a distinction. Open licensing is meaningless if
I cannot access the material.

However, having an open license is still great (and 90% of the way there).

>  (ii) this is inaccurate - and instead of what we've got, we should
> have a tick for 'openness' and a cross for 'bulk downloadability'?

I think what we have is accurate but we should show a tick where stuff
is right even if not everything is right. This is a simple fix to this
template:

<http://knowledgeforge.net/ckan/hg/file/tip/ckan/templates/package/common.html>

So I should be able to sort this out pretty soon.

> See, e.g. Akvopedia, which is under GFDL but has a cross next to
> openness as there is no download URL.

Yes!

Rufus