search

didierverna / declt

Reference manual generator for Common Lisp libraries
Other
38 stars 6 forks source link

Take license automatically if it is not given to declt function #9

Open svetlyak40wt opened 3 years ago

svetlyak40wt commented 3 years ago

Such code can be used with minor changes, to process case when license is not present:

(intern
  (string-upcase
      (asdf:system-license
         (asdf:find-system system-name)))
   "KEYWORD"))
Symbolics commented 3 years ago

This is a good idea. If implemented, I'd suggest that the declt documentation recommend selecting a short identifier from the SPDX license list. I have noticed that there is no consistency in the way projects fill in this field.

svetlyak40wt commented 3 years ago

Also, I think, if a license code was automatically extracted from a system definition and absent at declt:*licenses* list, then it should be silently ignored or considered as a warning rather than error.

didierverna commented 3 years ago

Hello,

The reason why I originally avoided extracting license information from ASDF (contrary to other things) altogether is that people do all sorts of funny things with this field out there (experience from Quickref). Some libraries even go as far as putting the whole license text in it, instead of just the license name... so at some point, I just gave up.

Another reason was that I wanted to adopt a lazy approach and sorta push people to ask me for the addition of a new license if needed. Going DWIM was not going to get me that. I reckon it only worked once though (I added the Boost license on demand, but that's it).

So yeah, it's probably a good idea to be slightly more tolerant after all.

@Symbolics Using SPDX specifiers is actually my long-term plan indeed (there is an old thread about that in the ASDF list archive somewhere). I started to investigate on ways to retrieve license text automatically from SPDX some time ago, but this is on hold right now.

Symbolics commented 3 years ago

Come to think of it, the SPDX and standardising on a license keyword does belong in ASDF. Is anyone still maintaining/improving ASDF?

On Monday, January 18, 2021, 5:20:32 PM GMT+8, Didier Verna <notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hello,

The reason why I originally avoided extracting license information from ASDF (contrary to other things) altogether is that people do all sorts of funny things with this field out there (experience from Quickref). Some libraries even go as far as putting the whole license text in it, instead of just the license name... so at some point, I just gave up.

Another reason was that I wanted to adopt a lazy approach and sorta push people to ask me for the addition of a new license if needed. Going DWIM was not going to get me that. I reckon it only worked once though (I added the Boost license on demand, but that's it).

So yeah, it's probably a good idea to be slightly more tolerant after all.

@Symbolics Using SPDX specifiers is actually my long-term plan indeed (there is an old thread about that in the ASDF list archive somewhere). I started to investigate on ways to retrieve license text automatically from SPDX some time ago, but this is on hold right now.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.