LICENSE incorrect

[mlinksva]

via http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-April/thread.html#141

(Happy to see OSSD button there as well, and link to source, though I
don't really understand the point of GPL/MIT dual licensing. But
nevermind about that!)

That's because we use some GPL/MIT licensed libraries I imagine.

In that case the project is out of *GPL compliance. https://github.com/okfn/annotator/blob/master/LICENSE indicates dual licensing, but obviously *GPL'd libraries can't be offered under MIT. I do see at least https://github.com/okfn/annotator/blob/master/lib/vendor/xpath.js under LGPL. Again, clarification is much needed. If an OKF-sponsored project can't get open licensing right, how can anyone be expected to?

[nickstenning]

Clarification may be needed, but I don't think this is fundamentally wrong or out of GPL compliance. The LICENSE file states that Annotator may be used either under the terms of the GPL license or the MIT license. The intention is to provide those who would rather require copyleft licensing of any derivative works an obvious indication that this is ok, while not issuing Annotator itself under such a restrictive license.

What exactly do you see as the problem here? As Annotator is not distributed in a binary format, I make no claims over the libraries included in this repository and licensed under other terms (such as the LGPL xpath.js you mention).

[nickstenning]

I note that jQuery is licensed under identical terms. Are you telling me they got their licensing wrong too? http://jquery.org/license

[mlinksva]

The two things jQuery got right that this project (possibly) hasn't

1 Noting third party licenses (only one, Sizzle)
2 Those third party licenses are compatible with the ones jQuery offered under

Regarding the first, that'd be easy to fix by adding list of vendor licenses to LICENSE.

The 2nd, LGPL isn't donor compatible with MIT (reverse is ok of course). But because this is LGPL not GPL, and it looks like there is no GPL, I imagine fixing 1 would obviate 2 as well.

I apologize for bringing up these annoying issues. Filing an issue seemed more useful than speculating on a tangentially related mailing list. Thank you for responding and for the software!!!

[nickstenning]

There's a big difference between jQuery and Annotator, in that Sizzle is included in a packaged version of jQuery, while xpath.js is not included in a packaged version of Annotator.

Do I really need to clarify that a piece of software that I don't bundle with Annotator releases and that I haven't modified in this repository is indeed not distributed under terms other than those at the top of its own source file?

Thank you for bringing up these issues -- there's no need to apologise. I'm just not sure I agree that Annotator's LICENSE file is "incorrect".

[mlinksva]

I see, xpath.js only used for tests.

It may not be clear what exactly LICENSE refers to -- it isn't included in the packaged software, which I'm assuming is https://github.com/okfn/annotator/downloads -- but now I understand what "Annotator is free software, and you may use it under the terms of either the MIT or the GNU GPL licenses" means.

I'm also not sure of what best practice is for noting licenses of software used only in building or testing, included in source repository but not in packaged version. I'll find out for my own edification.

(And I still apologize for bringing up in a jerky manner, and for not trying harder to understand use before bringing up.)