Add two extensions developed by RefinePro

[wetneb]

I wasn't aware of them but @magdmartin pointed me to them in a call. I think they are worth listing even though they are targeting a fairly old version.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for openrefine-website ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	09afcb5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/openrefine-website/deploys/6542b664898698000879c713
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-260--openrefine-website.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[tfmorris]

Should the attribution be to the RefinePro forks or the original FAIRplus repos (e.g. https://github.com/FAIRplus/OpenRefine_Authenticator)? They appear to have been contributed by Novartis (NIBR).

[magdmartin]

Thanks for adding them @wetneb .

RefinePro was contracted by NIBR to develop extensions, which were then released via FAIRplus. RefinePro added more details to the readme and ported open issues when forking the FAIRplus repositories. It is more likely that any new tickets or pull requests will receive attention on the RefinePro repositories.

[wetneb]

It is more likely that any new tickets or pull requests will receive attention on the RefinePro repositories.

Personally, I would say that the most actively maintained GitHub repository of a project should not be marked as a fork of another one, but as an independent one. You can convert a fork into a non-fork repository by making a request to GitHub's support.

[tfmorris]

I think it would be polite to acknowledge the funder & donor, unless they prefer to remain anonymous, but regardless, I strongly object to these extensions being promoted until their license violations are corrected. They contain entire modules of OpenRefine code, copied verbatim, without any of the required license notices.

For example the only differences in HttpClient.java are changing the package name and adding a single line (although it's also missing all the bug fixes we've made since it was copied).

[wetneb]

It's a valid point, but I would assume good faith here and avoid to scare away the extension author from interacting with the OpenRefine project. I am glad they wrote an extension for OpenRefine and want to encourage them to do more of that.

Looking at the HttpClient.java file, they did make its provenance clear with a comment, so they probably thought they were correctly crediting the original authors by doing that:

/*
    Custom code from original OpenRefine project main/src/com/google/refine/util/HttpClient.java
*/

So I would suspect it's just a lack of familiarity with the concept of license header and the importance to retain them. I think it should be easy to fix.