search

HughP / simal

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/simal
0 stars 0 forks source link

DOAP entry form enforces choice from limited range of licences #313

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The licence combo box defaults to Apache and contains a limited set of licences.

At a minimum options of unknown (blank and making it default would work) and 
other should be provided. Delux version would allow arbitrary entry via edit 
control (though that could lead to dirty data).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ste...@fullmeasure.co.uk on 3 Jul 2010 at 5:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Same for version control, licence and 'Primary non-software product'

Original comment by ste...@fullmeasure.co.uk on 6 Jul 2010 at 1:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 8 Jul 2010 at 11:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by ross.gardler on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 

1. Licence - added a default unknown and a few other licences. How many more 
should there be listed? I prefer not to add a free text entry on this field 
because it will lead to dirty data; instead I'd like to add the most common 
licences from the OSI list - please tell me which ones you want [1].

2. Version control - The ones that are listed are the only ones that are 
supported by DOAP. As a result there is not really a way of incorporating other 
version control systems without defining those in the Simal namespace. Which 
ones are missing? Do we want to go down this route?

3. Primary non-software product - What do we want here? One of the reasons this 
is a dropdown is because it enables categorisation. If we make this an 
arbitrary text edit we loose that. 

4. Content licence - what options should be added here? 

[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 23 Jul 2010 at 8:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
1 - pick the OSI popular at least -
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category

2 - OK, so I'd say almost all OS projects will use one of those listed now. So 
don't fix

3 - This is JISC specific so depends on their requirements. For me this raises 
a question of if this form have JISC specific fields?

Original comment by ste...@fullmeasure.co.uk on 28 Jul 2010 at 9:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 4 Aug 2010 at 7:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
We need to pick OSI popular licenses, at least.

We also need:

"Other OSI & FSF approved" 
"Other OSI (only) approved"
"Other FSF (only) approved"
"Proprietary"
"Unknown" (or don't make it required)

Original comment by ross.gardler on 4 Aug 2010 at 9:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Added licences from comment #7.

To close this off: What content licences do we need? 

Current list: 
- Creative Commons Attribution UK 2.0: England and Wales
- Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike UK 2.0: England and Wales

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 4 Aug 2010 at 10:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
CC-BY-NC

Other jurisdictins for CC (probably just the "no jurisdiction" version for now.

GFDL

Original comment by ross.gardler on 4 Aug 2010 at 10:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
List for content licences is now: 

Creative Commons Attribution
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike
Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives
GNU Free Documentation License

Only for CC licences choose from:
International
England & Wales
Scotland

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 4 Aug 2010 at 12:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision r1992.

Original comment by sander.v...@oucs.ox.ac.uk on 4 Aug 2010 at 12:41