Suggest use of OKFN license URL ?

[akuckartz]

https://github.com/okfn/licenses

[jpmckinney]

Why not use the license's own URL? I think it makes a lot more sense to link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ than to link to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-by/, which doesn't include the version number or even a link to the full text of the license.

[akuckartz]

That probably would be http://licenses.opendefinition.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.json (content negotiation does not seem to work: http://licenses.opendefinition.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0 results in 404):

"CC-BY-4.0": {
    "domain_content": true,
    "domain_data": true,
    "domain_software": false,
    "family": "",
    "id": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "maintainer": "Creative Commons",
    "od_conformance": "approved",
    "osd_conformance": "not reviewed",
    "status": "active",
    "title": "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0",
    "url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
},

For me this is a low priority issue or task, but it is one which could quickly become more important. (This is likely one of the last new ones before I start resolving all the collected open issues ;-)

BTW: In this context I am also looking at these two RDF-related issues over there: okfn/licenses#6 and okfn/licenses#4

[jpmckinney]

Why use the non-canonical URL for a license? Pointing directly to the actual license makes way more sense to me.

[akuckartz]

I added a question mark to the subject. An advantage of the enhanced(?) URL is machine readable meta-data - but I see the disadvantage of this indirection, and the same aim could be reached using less intrusive means. So, yes, I tend to agree with you.

[akuckartz]

Proposed resolution: One should use a canonical URL pointing directly to the actual license.

Using additional rights attributes is a separate matter not in scope of this issue.