-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
An open licence should be published openly #177
Comments
Is approved accurate for the first two? They aren't listed at http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ |
If you follow the links above you'll see in the json they're:
I'm not across licences in the UK - should these licenses be retired/superseded? |
If they are retired, yes. Does OGL supersede them or is it just different? But if they haven't been approved they shouldn't be marked as such. Is there any evidence that they have been? |
I have no evidence and no clues in https://github.com/okfn/licenses/blame/master/licenses/localauth-withrights.json |
Hmm, I see cd013ce I imagine if there is evidence it would be in http://web.archive.org/web/*/opendefinition.org (ie the site when it was in WordPress) or the old mailing list. |
Nevermind that commit, different license. |
Oh! Master says Why doesn't this equal http://licenses.opendefinition.org/licenses/ukcrown-withrights.json? |
The site is running off of |
Switched to |
Looking at licenses.csv and the json for
localauth-withrights
andukcrown-withrights
I notice both do not have a url for their licence yet they are shown as conformant open definition licences. I think all conformant licences should have an openly published licence at a url.ukclickusepsi
andukcrown
do not have urls. They are not conformant but they have been assessed so I'd also expect a url.Two points:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: