An open licence should be published openly

[Stephen-Gates]

Looking at licenses.csv and the json for localauth-withrights and ukcrown-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 and ukcrown do not have urls. They are not conformant but they have been assessed so I'd also expect a url.

Two points:

• are there urls to add to the data?
• should the open definition require openly published licences?

[mlinksva]

Is approved accurate for the first two? They aren't listed at http://opendefinition.org/licenses/

[Stephen-Gates]

If you follow the links above you'll see in the json they're:

"od_conformance": "approved", 
"status": "active", 
"url": ""

I'm not across licences in the UK - should these licenses be retired/superseded?

[mlinksva]

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?

[Stephen-Gates]

I have no evidence and no clues in https://github.com/okfn/licenses/blame/master/licenses/localauth-withrights.json

[mlinksva]

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.

[mlinksva]

Nevermind that commit, different license.

[Stephen-Gates]

Oh! Master says ukcrown-withrights is retired https://github.com/okfn/licenses/blob/master/licenses/ukcrown-withrights.json.

Why doesn't this equal http://licenses.opendefinition.org/licenses/ukcrown-withrights.json?

[mlinksva]

The site is running off of gh-pages. It probably should be switched to run off master and gh-pages deleted, or master deleted. I'll check on that, soon but not right now.

[mlinksva]

Switched to master. http://licenses.opendefinition.org/licenses/ukcrown-withrights.json says retired.