[directory-discuss] Are license files and notices mandatory?

[David Hedlund]

There are about 10 000 WebExtensions in addons.mozilla.org at this writing.

The first option ("1:") in both the "License files" and the "License
notices" described below would make it very simple to sync
addons.mozilla.org. The second option ("2:") will make the process tedious.

Can the FSF discuss this on a meeting?


##############################################
License files

These add-ons don't have a license copy in the root directory
* Adblock Plus - https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/6765
* NoScript - I recommended the author to add it

¤¤¤
1: Is it enough to add "|License note=" to them?

Example for Adblock Plus (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus)
source (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=Adblock_Plus&action=edit):

{{Project license
|License=GPLv3
|License copyright=Copyright (C) 2006-2012 Eyeo GmbH
|License verified by=Free Software Directory (Savannah) sync script
|License verified date=2013/04/26
|License note="License: GNU General Public License, version 3.0" listed
at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
}}

¤¤¤
2: Or should each add-on be downloaded and verified?

Should we use a license compliance software system like scancode (or
simply `$ unzip -l entry.xpi`) to verify that there is a license file in
the root directory? All 10 000 add-ons has to be downloaded and verified.


###############################################################
License notices

* 1: Can Directory entries be approved if non-trivial source code files
lack license notices?


* 2: Or should we download all 10 000 add-ons and use a license
compliance software system like scancode to verify them?