Is default package license URL correct?

[ericstj]

Looks like the license points to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=529443.

arcade/src/Microsoft.DotNet.Arcade.Sdk/tools/ProjectDefaults.props

Line 21 in 9104c21

<PackageLicenseUrl>http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=529443</PackageLicenseUrl>

This is the old library license.

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS

MICROSOFT .NET LIBRARY

Shouldn't we be defaulting to MIT? See https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/12190

[ericstj]

/cc @tmat @markwilkie

[tmat]

Seems like we have two sets of repos - some on MIT, others on Apache :(. This property will need to change anyways since NuGet now requires including the license file in the package and not setting the URL.

[tmat]

Related: #1373

[tmat]

Since license file is required to be in the repository (usually in the root) we can define a convention that the file is /License.txt in all our repos, include that file in the package automatically and report an error if it is not present.

@natemcmaster Would that work for ASP.NET repos?

[ericstj]

Allow for it to to be defined as a different path (for example /LICENSE) but it seems reasonable.

[natemcmaster]

@Eilon would be able to answer better on our requirements for license urls in aspnet packages. I haven't yet looked into embedded license files instead of using a stable license urls. We keep a license.txt file in the root in all aspnet repos

[tmat]

@ericstj

Allow for it to to be defined as a different path (for example /LICENSE) but it seems reasonable.

Why?

[ericstj]

Because not all repositories use .txt extension. We do but that's not a requirement. EG: https://github.com/dotnet/machinelearning/blob/master/LICENSE

[tmat]

Yeah, then we rename those that do not. Some repos use lower case, some upper case, some extension some not. I don't think we should do all permutations.

[tmat]

Perhaps we can allow two variants: LICENSE and License.txt.

[ericstj]

I'm not suggesting you support everything. Just think about how folks would set it themselves in their own repo before you hardcode it. I've noticed a lot of properties in Arcade don't take into account that they are providing a default that folks can override.

[tmat]

That's intentional. There is no point in being different here.

[ericstj]

Suppose someone has one project in the repo with a different license. Just allow for a project to overwrite $(PackageLicenseFile): don't set it in targets unconditionally. If you have a target that does anything (add it to package, check for existence) make sure it honors the value of the property and not a hardcoded path.

I think it would naturally work this way by replacing PackageLicenseUrl with PackageLicenseFile in the props, but I just wanted to point it out with your suggestion around the default convention.

[tmat]

Yes, it will probably be just naturally overridable. But my point is that allowing customization just for the sake of customization adds negative value.