Modules which have no license field or non-standard values for "license" #324
I have automated most of the pull requests below, to ones where it is indisputable what the License of the project was, either due there only being one LICENSE and it matching copies of those licenses almost exactly, or the metadata for
I am posting this here since I have finished the automated stage and going forward most of the rest will probably have to be checked manually to check what license they actually are (for those that have a LICENSE type file), or for those which don't opening an issue for the project.
Though it is not yet in S22, the way to denote a dual license using the SPDX spec is as below:
A license which allows you to use subsequent later versions if you choose
Common with GPL licenses. Example:
Example using the licensing of the Perl 5 project, which is dual licensed under Artistic 1.0 as sourced from the Perl site and the GPL-1.0 (or greater):
Detailed information about the ones which do not yet have Pull Requests can be seen in this JSON here:
Note: jonathanstowe has stated he would not like any PR regarding metadata to his projects
No PR or Issue
Note repeated from above: jonathanstowe has stated he would not like any PR regarding metadata to his projects
Merged or Fixed
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Probably need to revisit the above list, I'll knock something up a bit later to see what the current state is if someone doesn't get there first.
But personally I'd not be in favour of something quite so draconian as de-listing, I'd probably be more in favour of using a form of words like "We are unable to determine the licence for this module, the details may be available in some other form in the source code, if the licensing is of concern to you please contact the author" maybe with some additional disclaimer.