Skip to content
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

Closed
bf4 opened this issue Jul 23, 2013 · 5 comments
Closed

License missing from gemspec #22

bf4 opened this issue Jul 23, 2013 · 5 comments

Comments

@bf4
Copy link

bf4 commented Jul 23, 2013

Some companies will only use gems with a certain license.
The canonical and easy way to check is via the gemspec,

via e.g.

spec.license = 'MIT'
# or
spec.licenses = ['MIT', 'GPL-2']

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

@wkranec
Copy link
Collaborator

wkranec commented Jul 24, 2013

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?

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Jul 24, 2013

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.

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Dec 22, 2013

Bump :) And here's a list of usage frequency https://github.com/bf4/gemproject/blob/master/license_usage.csv

@marksweston
Copy link
Owner

Updated and fixed in 1e09e7c

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Dec 26, 2015

🌈 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants