Improve licence detection?

[tripu]

Apart from generally expecting our own licences from the templates on w3c/licenses, I wonder if we could reuse benbalter/licensee to accept as valid (or at least identify correctly) certain other licences too. eg: many W3C software repos are MIT-licenced.

(licensee is the same Ruby gem that GitHub uses to try to detect licences on all their repos.)

[plehegar]

We certainly could but WG/IG/CG shouldn't use non-w3c/licenses on repositories containing technical reports.

[tripu]

Perhaps we can use the presence of absence of w3c.json as an indicator of whether the repo contains specs or software, and allow (only) software repos to use those other licences…?

[plehegar]

We'd need to clean up the repos a bit before doing so, ie making sure the technical reports repos have a w3c.json.
See also w3c/w3c.github.io#53

[plehegar]

We also need to check the Group is using the proper w3c/licenses files. At the moment, we only check that it's using one of them but the Group charters do indicate which ones. Most of our groups are using either the document or the software license. One Group (Timed Text, possibly more?) is using both of them at will, so we can't check that for now.