Clarify how to specify a commercial license

[collimarco]

We have a gem distributed under a commercial license (Cuber License).

Now we have specified the license in a file called LICENSE in the root of the Git repository.

However when I run gem build I get a warning, complaining that license is not present in the gemspec.

I see a lot of confusion here, in case of a commercial license (EULA)...

1. Should I keep the license field empty?
2. Should I use Nonstandard for the license field?
3. Should I use Cuber License for the license field?
4. Should I use LicenseRef-LICENSE for the license field?

Every part of your documentation seems to suggest something different and a clarification would be useful for everyone.

[simi]

I'm not SPDX expert, but just follow SPDX specification - https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/.

[collimarco]

@simi Which, in practical terms, is case 1, 2, 3, 4 or something else? Can you provide a concrete solution for my scenario above (which is a common case where you have a commercial license)?

[simi]

I have no idea, please consult with SPDX specification and experts. Anyway I don't see anything wrong here with RubyGems.

[simi]

moved to discussion

[collimarco]

I don't know why you moved this to a discussion, when it's actually an issue.

RubyGems should at least clarify the documentation.

The documentation must specify clearly a single approach for commercial licenses.

Please reopen the issue until this is fixed. Thanks

[simi]

According to #5013, I would go with 4..

[simi]

@collimarco you need RubyGems v3.3.0+ to get support for LicenseRef-*. Can you check LicenseRef-* causes trouble even using RubyGems 3.3.0 (or later)?

[collimarco]

Following your advice, in the previous example I would use LicenseRef-LICENSE (since the file, like in most repos, is called simply LICENSE). Someone who reads the gemspec may find it strange to read LicenseRef-LICENSE... What does it mean? It's not very intuitive. I am not saying it's wrong, just not very meaningful and possibly misleading. Do you have any idea where this convention comes from? Can we find a better alternative (useful for all commercial or private Ruby gems)?

[simi]

Is is coming from https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/ (Annex D.1) as I mentioned before. Gemspec is not meant to be used directly, anyway most of the columns are documented at proper place - https://guides.rubygems.org/specification-reference/#license=. It would be nice if you please try to spend your own time looking for the answers first. I tried to point to to proper places already few times.

[collimarco]

@simi I already read that documentation before opening the issue, as you can clearly see from my original post. In any case it seems that you just want to close this discussion and your attitude, from the beginning, is definitely hostile towards new contributions and improvements, so I won't post anything else. It's sad, because this issue is relevant for everyone (clarifying how commercial licenses are specified allows a better use of automation tools for license checks and avoids ambiguity).

[simi]

Even I don't like your tone of writing, I have answered all your questions.

1. in your case use LicenseRef-LICENSE
2. for another valid values consult SPDX docs or consult with SPDX people
3. documentation for gemspec license attribute is present at https://guides.rubygems.org/specification-reference/#license=

If you have any idea to improve, feel free to share.