-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(license): add struct with types for licenses #256
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
f9ac5e1
d7dea13
39a8f02
fd92745
757ba41
e7bb512
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -74,4 +74,6 @@ const ( | |
RefVCS RefType = "vcs" | ||
RefIssueTracker RefType = "issue-tracker" | ||
RefOther RefType = "other" | ||
|
||
NonSeparableLicensePrefix = "non-separable: " | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We already have file:// prefix. Perhaps we want to create new struct for License field. just as idea: type License struct {
Value string
Type licenseType
}
type licenseType string
const (
fileLicenseType licenseType = "file" // filename for license file
textLicenseType licenseType = "text" // text of license (for split, classifier, etc.)
nonSeparableTextLicenseType licenseType = "nonSeparable-text" // text of license without possible to split
formattedLicenseType licenseType = "formattedLicenses" // formatted licenses (e.g. in SPDX format)
) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It sounds reasonable. We can go with that approach. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @knqyf263 I have added |
||
) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking about checking
license classifiers
beforelicense
, but in this case we might miss some nuances (like license exclusion).So I left the old order.