Add org.label-schema.license, org.label-schema.license-image and org.label-schema.license-source to specification #21
Conversation
Accordingly to SPDX license specification
|
How should situations like "X or Y" be handled in this field? e.g. https://www.freetype.org/license.html How should the aggregation of packages within the image be handled when each package has a different license? |
|
For that, a multiple key license would have to be implemented, such as proposed for authors in #23 : To describe better to where each license applies, it may need to have to get extra fields, such as target or context: Let me know what you think and I'll submit a new patch |
lpalgarvio
changed the title
lpalgarvio
changed the title
|
Does that handle the "or" case? |
|
No. For complex scenarios, authors can ignore these labels and just write their own LICENSE.md file describing all the exceptions, ors, ands, and all license attributions. |
|
Actually SPDX supports OR cases: Reference: https://spdx.org/spdx-specification-21-web-version#h.jxpfx0ykyb60 |
|
I like the proposed change, but as I recall we omitted license from the first draft because there were concerns about what it really means - does it mean source code license even if the source is not included in the image? @garethr what are your views on this? |
|
Reimplemented differently.
|
lpalgarvio
changed the title
|
@lizrice Isn't that (which labels to use whenever the source is included or not) to be handled by the user including the label? IMO license-* labels with standard values should be provided to address stories that have straightforward parameters. For other stories, a custom licensing can be used. |
| @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ All labels are OPTIONAL, however if present MUST be prefixed with the namespace | |||
| | `build-date` | `org.label-schema.build-date="2016-04-12T23:20:50.52Z"` | This label contains the Date/Time the image was built. The value SHOULD be formatted according to [RFC 3339](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339). | | |||
| | `name` | `org.label-schema.name = "myname"` | A human friendly name for the image. For example, this could be the name of a microservice in a microservice architecture. | | |||
| | `description` | `org.label-schema.description = "This service does awesome things with other things"` | Text description of the image. May contain up to 300 characters. | | |||
| | `license` | `org.label-schema.license = "GPL-3.0"` | License(s) of the project. Must conform to the [SPDX license specification](https://spdx.org/licenses). | | |||
| | `license-image` | `org.label-schema.license-image = "MIT"` | License(s) of the image, if different from the project. Must conform to the [SPDX license specification](https://spdx.org/licenses). | | |||
| | `license-source` | `org.label-schema.license-source = "GPL-3.0"` | License(s) of the source code, if different from the project. Must conform to the [SPDX license specification](https://spdx.org/licenses). | | |||
| | `usage` | `org.label-schema.usage= "/usr/doc/app-usage.txt"` | Link to a file in the container or alternatively a URL that provides usage instructions. If a URL is given it SHOULD be specific to this version of the image e.g. `http://docs.example.com/v1.2/usage` rather than `http://docs.example.com/usage` | | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would we need to provide examples on which scenarios these labels address specifically?
3 additions being proposed:
org.label-schema.license = "GPL-3.0"- License(s) of the project. Must conform to the SPDX license specification.org.label-schema.license-image = "MIT"- License(s) of the image, if different from the project. Must conform to the SPDX license specification.org.label-schema.license-source = "GPL-3.0"- License(s) of the source code, if different from the project. Must conform to the SPDX license specification.