Use AGPL exclusively

[davidread]

You say that all code should be dual licensed AGPL and MIT. However my understanding is that since core CKAN code is AGPL, any derived work cannot be licensed under MIT.

In addition I don't think it is appropriate for the MIT licence to be used for services like this. If you believe that it is important that open tools exist for open data, like CKAN, then you should ensure that code you commission has copyleft clause like AGPL not MIT. For a quick fair comparison see: http://choosealicense.com/

[waldoj]

You say that all code should be dual licensed AGPL and MIT. However my understanding is that since core CKAN code is AGPL, any derived work cannot be licensed under MIT.

That licensing recommendation was written by the OKFN, so I assumed that MIT was compatible. That's surely something we must look into—thank you. That said, our charter prohibits us from using GPL ("ODI shall adopt and utilise Open Standards and/or Open Source License (MIT, Apache, BSD, and not GPL) ," so if it is possible for our contributions to be licensed under MIT, we're obliged to do so. If our contributions must be licensed under AGPL, then that's a problem we'll have to muddle through somehow. :-/