docs and create template for new license stanza

[rolandwalker]

This is the first new stanza to be added to the default template in a long time.

At the end of transition, it will become a required stanza. However, it is perfectly
fine to leave the value as :unknown, and we should encourage Cask authors to
do so if there is any difficulty.

Likewise, we have no intention of covering the infinite possible commercial /
closed-source licenses. If there is no matching license, rather than quibble over
details, the Cask should use license :commercial or license :closed.

[vitorgalvao]

Some of these are a bit weird, since they’re not licenses. Something can be freemium and open-source at the same time, for example. The definitions of freemium and trial also blend a bit, there.

I’m also opposed to the inclusion of trial. It would (naturally) encourage the inclusion of trial software that cannot be upgraded once downloaded with homebrew-cask (such as MAS-only apps). We’ve always refused such apps, and with good reason: it’s a bad experience to download something with limitations you won’t be able to remove without extra work.

[rolandwalker]

:trial is intended to mean that the software works, but with some limitation such as a timeout. We already do have such apps (so long as MAS is not required). I don't think labeling them would cause a change in submissions.

I agree that it is harder to classify commercial and closed-source software, because commercial licenses have not become so standardized as OSS licenses.

And yes, a hierarchy can never be perfect. But as to the above example case, everything under :closed is closed. So :freemium means :closed/:freemium. If something is open-source, with some kind of one-off freemium licensing, then it would be labeled generic :oss.

The code to support this has been out for a very long time, and I really don't want to get hung up on this now. I've already started pushing license stanzas.

For the moment, could we just change this PR de-document most of the :closed licenses? I'm thinking we could pare it back to :closed, :gratis, :commercial?

[vitorgalvao]

Sure. I don’t oppose the inclusion of :freemium (or any of the other :closed ones), though, just :trial: it’s insanely specific, as most commercial apps are either freemium of have a trial (how many commercial apps are there that you download and cannot use at all (no time trial or reduced features) without paying? Not many (are there even any remotely popular ones?), which is why I believe there would be confusion.

[rolandwalker]

@ndr-qef also expressed similar misgivings on IRC earlier, so I pared it back to :closed, :gratis, and :commercial. No sense getting out-of-step with each other over such a detail.

So, the removed values will not be part of DSL 1.0. We should revisit later. The relevant code is flagged but not deleted.

[tapeinosyne]

Yes, I am not overly fond of including :license values which may fail to capture meaningul terms. However, as @rolandwalker said, this is a small thing which makes little sense to overthink — we can just commit a useful subset and review further values at a later date.

[vitorgalvao]

Agreed. It’s a fault that I sometimes can get caught up in minutia. Apologies on that; you’re absolutely right that landing this was the important part right now, and we can deal with such intricacies later.

[rolandwalker]

@vitorgalvao, not a fault — your focus on interface boils down to wanting Cask authors to be able to get submissions right on the first try. That is essential to the project momentum, and requires forethought.