Ask user for a license for `charm create`
Bug #1275712 reported by
Jorge Castro
This bug affects 2 people
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juju Charm Tools |
Triaged
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
Ben and I were thinking that `charm create` should also boilerplate a license file.
This will
a) Ensure that all charms have a license right out of the gate instead of us catching it in review.
b) Encourages authors to think about the license of the charm, which is real code, so it needs a license.
Ben and I were thinking that though we prefer GPL3 charms that that might not make sense for all users, so perhaps ask the user what kind of license they would want their charm to be, maybe a multiple choice with like
1: GPL3
2: MIT/BSD
3: Proprietary
And I'm sure we'll bikeshed the UI and list of licenses, but the general goal should be that our tools should by default make the author choose a license.
| Changed in charm-tools: | |
| status: | New → Triaged |
| importance: | Undecided → Medium |
| milestone: | none → 1.3.0 |
| Changed in charm-tools: | |
| milestone: | 1.3.0 → 1.4.0 |
Revision history for this message
| Antonio Rosales (arosales) wrote | #1 |
To post a comment you must log in.
I also ran into this. charm proof will give a warning for a missing copyright file, but charm create does not create a boiler plate template.
Suggest to have charm create make a boilerplate copyright template that needs to be updated. charm proof can then flag, as a warning (so it fails review), if the copyright boilerplate has not been updated. Similar to what we do for the Readme.ex
-thanks,
Antonio