You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There is currently no way to specify that the user approves OSI approved licenses without caring if the license is FSF Free or not.
Describe the solution you'd like
I would propose adding the following options to the allow-osi-fsf-free field:
osi: The license is accepted if it is OSI approved. Its status with FSF does not matter.
fsf: The license is accepted if it FSF Free. Its status with OSI does not matter.
Describe alternatives you've considered
There's possibly a way to replace the allow-osi-fsf-free field with 2 new fields not-fsf and not-osi. However, it is not clear how this alternative would cover the cases of osi-only and fsf-only.
Additional context
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This PR resolvesEmbarkStudios#210 by adding `osi` and `fsf` as new values for `allow-osi-fsf-free. This allows for the use case where a cargo-deny user wants to blanket allow all FSF licenses while not caring about OSI (or vice versa).
This PR resolves#210 by adding `osi` and `fsf` as new values for
`allow-osi-fsf-free`. This allows for the use case where a cargo-deny
user wants to blanket allow all FSF licenses while not caring about OSI
(or vice versa).
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There is currently no way to specify that the user approves OSI approved licenses without caring if the license is FSF Free or not.
Describe the solution you'd like
I would propose adding the following options to the
allow-osi-fsf-free
field:osi
: The license is accepted if it is OSI approved. Its status with FSF does not matter.fsf
: The license is accepted if it FSF Free. Its status with OSI does not matter.Describe alternatives you've considered
There's possibly a way to replace the
allow-osi-fsf-free
field with 2 new fieldsnot-fsf
andnot-osi
. However, it is not clear how this alternative would cover the cases ofosi-only
andfsf-only
.Additional context
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: