> 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
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ 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. Jon _______________________________________________ RubyGems-Developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems RubyGems-Developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
