On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:50 AM, David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 17. Better formalization of license field
>
> Proposal:
>
> Replace the list of strings for the "license" field with something
> extensible and unambiguous. (RicardoSignes)
This discussion is going in circles, I think. I'd like to break it
down to a number of specific sub-proposals and get people's reactions
to them individually. These sub-proposals are not all mutually
exclusive, so if you want to react to them as clusters, that's fine,
too.
17.01) Enumerate a list of license strings explicitly in the spec,
rather than by reference to Module::Build::API. Currently, the list
is:
perl
apache
artistic
artistic_2
lgpl
lgpl2
lgpl3
bsd
gpl
gpl2
gpl3
mit
mozilla
open_source
unrestricted
restrictive
unknown
Additional strings (e.g. 'mixed' or additional licenses) could be
added if deemed necessary.
17.02) Make the license field an arrayref rather than a scalar.
Change the definition to have the field be a list of all license which
might apply to the distribution, either as alternatives or for
different subcomponents.
17.03) Make the license field optional (defaulting to 'unknown')
17.04) Instead of license being a list of valid strings, define it as
a Software::License subclass name (which implies an API standad that
can be used to get information about the license like display name and
URL)
17.05) Make the "$meta->{resources}->{license}" field an optional
hashref with name/URL pairs for providing short names and URLs for use
by indexers. (These might get populated by Software::License, of
course.) N.B. This option is probably redundant if 17.02 and 17.04
are adopted.
-- David
