Make license/licenses field mandatory
drbrain at segment7.net
Wed Oct 19 17:39:31 EDT 2011
On Oct 19, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Jay Feldblum wrote:
> 1. What could RubyGems.org do to make it easy for all of its users to do
> the right thing, and do the right thing by default?
> 2. What should RubyGems.org do in that regard?
RubyGems already has a licenses field designed for short names, but RubyGems can't provide any guarantees.
> The wrong thing is for gem authors to upload unlicensed gems or gems with
> unusable licenses to a public gems-sharing website, and for gem users to
> download and use those gems under the default assumption that it's ok (it's
> not, and gem users need to understand that and pay attention to it).
Continuing to argue this point on this mailing list will get you nowhere. I can't control what gem authors do and I have very limited power to push them in any particular direction.
You are going to need to write up some documents to educate gem authors. I don't have the time or passion to write up such a document and none of the other committers have shown an interest. If you wish to see further movement you need to start educating authors. I can help publicize what you write.
> RubyGems.org could guide its users towards uploading only licensed software
> where RubyGems.org knows about the license used (e.g. it's a SPDX license
Have you not been reading this thread? We've already agreed to using the SPDX tags, but will not enforce any restriction at this time.
> RubyGems.org could also guide its users to knowing about
> the licenses of every gem uploaded to it, by displaying the license name
> (and a link to the license text) on the page for that gem and by permitting
> the rubygems library to expose the license as gem metadata.
I can't speak for Nick, but I believe he has his hands full between his work responsibilities and the existing maintenance burden of running rubygems.org. If you wish to see such features you will need to write them.
More information about the RubyGems-Developers