Specify source code license about publicbodies

[rufuspollock]

@augusto-herrmann good point and suggest we apply the MIT license here. For the data we are already stating the license is PDDL (see datapackage.json) but we could probably make that more explicit.

[augusto-herrmann]

@rgrp considering the software is a web application, a MIT licence would allow for closed forks to be served in software-as-a-service model without contributing back the source code. Is that what we want? Why not Affero, like CKAN?

As for the data, how about using CC-Zero, now that Creative Commons do support licensing data? One advantage over PDDL is that CC-Zero is already translated to some languages and has been analysed in some jurisdictions. Also, we must anyway make the distinction between data that was already put in public domain by legislation, in which case the Public Domain Mark would be appropriate.

[rufuspollock]

@augusto-herrmann the webapp is pretty simple so happy to keep with MIT here (I doubt much benefit in a closed fork).

Given this is data I don't see the benefit of the switch to CC-Zero over PDDL. Note that data in the public domain by legislation may only be public domain in that jurisdiction ...

[augusto-herrmann]

@rgrp if you're not concerned of the webapp being closed in a fork, then
neither am I. :)

As for the data, the problem is that you can't assign a licence to
something you don't hold copyright for or to something that copyright
doesn't apply (such as material set to be in the public domain by law). You
can see something similiar with the Creative Commons licences, that is why
they have both CC-Zero and the Public Domain Mark as two separate things
[1], each appropriate for a different situation.

I suspect with PDDL the same thinking would apply, i.e., you need to
ascertain which data is already in the public domain or not otherwise
covered by copyright, apply the PDM to that. Otherwise, apply the PDDL.

[1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ#Who_can_use_CC0.3F

[rufuspollock]

@augusto-herrmann no the PDDL is the public domain dedication and license - it is precisely designed to handle the issue you raise :-)

[augusto-herrmann]

@rgrp a careful look at the PDDL text will make it clear that's not the
case. However, let's continue this discussion on the mailing list, as it
has derailed into something that is out of scope for this issue. :-)