Make license/licenses field mandatory
jon.forums at gmail.com
Fri Oct 14 13:30:25 EDT 2011
> The thing that needs enforcement is rubygems.org, the public gems
> repository. The thing that needs to guide users in the right direction is
> the rubygems library.
While I'm not yet convinced of "The thing that needs enforcement is
rubygems.org..." and I'm not a lawyer, I did read the fedoraproject.org link
from Jeremy, and a couple of its embedded links
and am struck by a few things
1) The amount of legal and non-legal up-front investment and ongoing
maintenance that is likely required to implement enforcement correctly.
2) Are there potential liabilities that are inadvertently taken on if
rubygems.org attempts to implement *any* licensing enforcement above and
beyond what's currently done? And of course the complement question.
3) The ongoing rubygems.org policy discussion is beyond the scope of the
OP's original proposal and really another thread.
I'm not trying to short-circuit the discussion or diminish important
licensing issues, but my bias is to answer "yes" to the OPs proposal of
making `licenses` mandatory and simply implement a check like the current
`authors` check. And perhaps a future `Gem::Lint` abstraction as previously
mentioned enables some sort of pluggable way for RG commands to have
hookable validation of a specification to meet specific needs that really
fall outside of RG's scope.
More information about the RubyGems-Developers