code.dlang.org now supports categories and search - license information now required

[ilya-stromberg]

On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 10:07:40 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 17.10.2013 11:55, schrieb ilya-stromberg:
>> On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 09:33:46 UTC, Sönke Ludwig 
>> wrote:
>>> There has been another important change that requires existing
>>> packages to be updated: All packages must now have the fields
>>> "description" and "license" present to be published. The 
>>> license field
>>> has to be set according to the specification [1]. All existing
>>> branches and version tags stay unaffected by this requirement 
>>> and are
>>> still available.
>>>
>>> This change has been done to prepare for an automated 
>>> validation of
>>> license terms in complex dependency hierarchies. This may be 
>>> an
>>> important feature as the number of available packages grows, 
>>> which is
>>> why this requirement has been introduced now as early as 
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> [1]: http://code.dlang.org/package-format#licenses
>>
>> A little addition: allow use full license name, not only short 
>> name:
>> `BSL-1.0` or `Boost Software License 1.0`
>> `AFL-3.0` or `Academic Free License 3.0`
>> It simplify creation of human-readable license name.
>
> How about letting the registry display the full name, but keep 
> the short name for package descriptions? Having a single 
> compact name reduces the chances for errors or ambiguities and 
> reduces the amount of mapping code that is needed when 
> reasoning about licenses. My initial idea was to fuzzy match 
> licenses and also allow alternatives like "GPLv2" instead of 
> "GPL-2.0", but in the end it just increases the potential for 
> mistakes.

OK, maybe you are right.

>
>>
>> Add `public domain` license.
>
> Will do.
>
>>
>> Add abbility to add the array with licenses:
>> "license": ["BSL-1.0", "AFL-3.0", "public domain"]
>> I think it's better than
>> "license": "BSL-1.0 or AFL-3.0 or public domain"
>
> There will still be the need to specify "or later", so this 
> will only make it partially more structured. I'm a little 
> undecided on this one.

We can use `+` to indicate "or later":
"license": ["BSL-1.0+", "AFL-3.0+", "public domain"]
I think it will be clear.