-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
License missing from gemspec #22
Comments
Thanks for letting me know about this. Marking the license as gem metadata seems easy enough to do ... but I can't find any documentation on the appropriate "codes" for this field. My current license is LGPL version 3, can I put "LGPL-3" in this field? |
Yeah, that's good. I should see about publishing all the different license names and frequencies people use, but you're right, there's no guideline or standard for that. |
Bump :) And here's a list of usage frequency https://github.com/bf4/gemproject/blob/master/license_usage.csv |
Updated and fixed in 1e09e7c |
🌈 👍 |
Some companies will only use gems with a certain license.
The canonical and easy way to check is via the gemspec,
via e.g.
Even for projects that already specify a license, including a license in your gemspec is a good practice, since it is easily
discoverable there without having to check the readme or for a license file. For example, it is the field that rubygems.org uses to display a gem's license.
For example, there is a License Finder gem to help companies ensure all gems they use
meet their licensing needs. This tool depends on license information being available in the gemspec. This is an important enough
issue that even Bundler now generates gems with a default 'MIT' license.
If you need help choosing a license (sorry, I haven't checked your readme or looked for a license file), github has created a license picker tool.
In case you're wondering how I found you and why I made this issue, it's because I'm collecting stats on gems (I was originally looking for download data) and decided to collect license metadata,too, and make issues for gemspecs not specifying a license as a public service :).
I hope you'll consider specifying a license in your gemspec. If not, please just close the issue and let me know. In either case, I'll follow up. Thanks!
p.s. I've written a blog post about this project
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: