Disclosure labels: distinguish optional vs. required external accounts (section 4.7)

[SergioComeron]

Hi! Tier 1 maintainer of mod_jitsi here, with a real-world labelling case that the current vocabulary can't quite express.

My plugin is free of charge in its entirety, and its core functionality (scheduling and running videoconferences) needs no account of any kind. A subset of optional features (attendance reports, recording view tracking, usage statistics) requires a free account on an external portal, mainly so I can see which features and Moodle versions are actually used.

Under the current definitions in section 4.7 of the RFC I declared fully-free + external-account, which I believe is the most honest combination available:

• fully-free alone would under-declare — its definition says "no paid components or external accounts", and some features do use one.
• external-account alone would over-declare — the plugin page renders it as "External account required", which reads as a blanket requirement for the plugin to function at all.

Note that paid-service already handles this nuance with its "(in full or in part)" qualifier, but external-account has no equivalent.

A few possible fixes, in roughly increasing order of effort:

1. Badge wording only: render the label as "External account (some features)" or similar when combined with fully-free, since that combination already implies the account can't be required for core functionality.
2. Qualifier in the definition: extend external-account with the same "(in full or in part)" language as paid-service, and let the site render the softer wording.
3. Vocabulary split: external-account (required to function) vs. external-account-optional (only some features). More precise, but grows the vocabulary and every consumer needs to learn two labels.

I'd lean towards option 1 or 2 — the information "an external account exists somewhere in this plugin" is what matters for privacy/procurement review, and the required/optional nuance seems more like presentation than taxonomy.

Happy to PR whichever direction you prefer. And thanks for CAMP — claiming was refreshingly painless.

[davidpesce]

Hi @SergioComeron - apologies for not seeing this! I've created it as an issue here: #5

This way it'll get more notice.