Am 17.10.2013 11:55, schrieb ilya-stromberg:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 09:33:46 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
There has been another important change that requires existing
packages to be updated: All packages must now have the fields
"description" and "license" present to be published. The license field
has to be set according to the specification [1]. All existing
branches and version tags stay unaffected by this requirement and are
still available.

This change has been done to prepare for an automated validation of
license terms in complex dependency hierarchies. This may be an
important feature as the number of available packages grows, which is
why this requirement has been introduced now as early as possible.

[1]: http://code.dlang.org/package-format#licenses

A little addition: allow use full license name, not only short name:
`BSL-1.0` or `Boost Software License 1.0`
`AFL-3.0` or `Academic Free License 3.0`
It simplify creation of human-readable license name.

How about letting the registry display the full name, but keep the short name for package descriptions? Having a single compact name reduces the chances for errors or ambiguities and reduces the amount of mapping code that is needed when reasoning about licenses. My initial idea was to fuzzy match licenses and also allow alternatives like "GPLv2" instead of "GPL-2.0", but in the end it just increases the potential for mistakes.


Add `public domain` license.

Will do.


Add abbility to add the array with licenses:
"license": ["BSL-1.0", "AFL-3.0", "public domain"]
I think it's better than
"license": "BSL-1.0 or AFL-3.0 or public domain"

There will still be the need to specify "or later", so this will only make it partially more structured. I'm a little undecided on this one.

Reply via email to