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 #33

Closed
bf4 opened this issue Nov 14, 2013 · 8 comments
Closed

License missing from gemspec #33

bf4 opened this issue Nov 14, 2013 · 8 comments

Comments

@bf4
Copy link

bf4 commented Nov 14, 2013

RubyGems.org doesn't report a license for your gem. This is because it is not specified in the gemspec of your last release.

via e.g.

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

Including a license in your gemspec is an easy way for rubygems.org and other tools to check how your gem is licensed. As you can imagine, scanning your repository for a LICENSE file or parsing the README, and then attempting to identify the license or licenses is much more difficult and more error prone. So, even for projects that already specify a license, including a license in your gemspec is a good practice. See, for example, how rubygems.org uses the gemspec to display the rails gem license.

There is even a License Finder gem to help companies/individuals 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.

I hope you'll consider specifying a license in your gemspec. If not, please just close the issue with a nice message. In either case, I'll follow up. Thanks for your time!

Appendix:

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. Code without a license specified defaults to 'All rights reserved'-- denying others all rights to use of the code.
Here's a list of the license names I've found and their frequencies

p.s. 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 :). See the previous link or my blog post about this project for more information.

@avescodes
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @bf4, we'll add our license in the next release.

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Nov 15, 2013

Awesome, thanks! 🌈

@yokolet
Copy link
Contributor

yokolet commented Nov 16, 2013

Thank @rkneufeld . But, I fixed the license info of gemspecs. Diametric is a multi-ploaform gem. We have two gemspecs, one for CRuby and one for JRuby.

More importantly, Diametric's license is BSD, not MIT.

I fixed those, so master has correct licenses for both platform gems, now.

@avescodes
Copy link
Contributor

Ahh, I didn't realize there were two gemspecs, my bad. It looks like the README says BSD and the LICENSE.txt file says MIT. We should get @cndreisbach's consent and clean that up.

@yokolet
Copy link
Contributor

yokolet commented Nov 17, 2013

Oh, wow.
You already pinged @cndreisbach (me as well), so probably we can hear something from Clinton.

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Nov 17, 2013

Well, thanks all for following up on this :)

@yokolet
Copy link
Contributor

yokolet commented Jan 30, 2014

I talked with Clinton in person about the license. In Clinton's perspective, he doesn't case either BSD or MIT. So, I chose MIT and updated all licenses.

@bf4
Copy link
Author

bf4 commented Feb 4, 2014

Awesome, thanks! 🌈 💠

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