Hide "Licenses" box for gems with N/A Licenses #496

Closed
qrush opened this Issue Dec 3, 2012 · 11 comments

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@qrush
Member
qrush commented Dec 3, 2012

Not a fan of this empty block of copy now that is on most gems since #363 / #458 has been merged:

http://rubygems.org/gems/rails

Let's just hide it if the gem has no info.

@adkron
adkron commented Dec 3, 2012

I like it because I feel it is a call to action for the maintainer to add it.

@qrush
Member
qrush commented Dec 3, 2012

The license field is opt-in, and optional in the gemspec. It's also very inaccurate for many projects that simply have omitted it by mistake or just not knowing how to specify it in the gemspec.

@adkron
adkron commented Dec 3, 2012

Does that make the information of NA any less accurate? Will this call maintainer attention to that information? I think it would be great to have a little icon next to information that comes out of the gemspec file. The would then lead to the documentation about how to specify that in your gemspec.

@qrush
Member
qrush commented Dec 3, 2012

The N/A is just a waste of space, and I feel like it's not genuine. Everything with the gems page is upfront and obvious:. What does N/A even mean in this context, as someone who might be unfamiliar with gems? I just don't like the design decision behind the copy. The license is not "unknown" or "not available", we just simply don't have enough information.

I also don't see where or how a ? icon would go to be helpful.

Sorry if this is coming off as pissy...just trying to approach this with fresh eyes.

@adkron
adkron commented Dec 3, 2012

@qrush I don't think it is pissy at all. I see where your coming from. I just wanted to make sure that it was talked out. I think there are good reasons for both.

@sferik
Member
sferik commented Dec 3, 2012

I have an idea: What if we only showed the icon if a user is signed in as one of the gem maintainers and the license is blank. This would subtly encourage maintainers to add a LICENSE declaration to their gems without confusing new users or creating unnecessary UI cruft.

@adkron
adkron commented Dec 3, 2012

I like that.

@sferik
Member
sferik commented Dec 3, 2012

@adkron Want to code up a patch?

@qrush
Member
qrush commented Dec 3, 2012

I'm fine with the scoping to an owner of a gem. Heck, we could put an entire block of copy "You should add a license! etc etc". with links to some page (externally) that describes the choices.

I still don't get where the ? would go.

@sferik
Member
sferik commented Dec 3, 2012

I imaged the would go under the Licenses heading (only visible to the gem owner) but I think you're right, it makes more sense to just explain it inline:

It looks like you have not specified a license for this gem in your gemspec. Here's an example of how to do that:

spec.licenses = ["My Favorite License"]
@adkron
adkron commented Jan 23, 2013

I'm going to close this for now. We can bring up another ticket if we want to revisit the solution. The original idea is this ticket is complete and merged.

@adkron adkron closed this Jan 23, 2013
@arthurnn arthurnn pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 29, 2015
@mattgillooly mattgillooly hide Licenses box when a Rubygem has no licenses
addresses Issue #496
6e13cb9
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment