-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 359
Make the 400 "missing license" page more informative #1971
Copy link
Copy link
Open
Labels
CODESome other Code related issue and it should clearly describe what it is affecting in a comment.Some other Code related issue and it should clearly describe what it is affecting in a comment.UIPertains inclusively to the User Interface.Pertains inclusively to the User Interface.enhancementSomething we do have implemented already but needs improvement upon to the best of knowledge.Something we do have implemented already but needs improvement upon to the best of knowledge.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
CODESome other Code related issue and it should clearly describe what it is affecting in a comment.Some other Code related issue and it should clearly describe what it is affecting in a comment.UIPertains inclusively to the User Interface.Pertains inclusively to the User Interface.enhancementSomething we do have implemented already but needs improvement upon to the best of knowledge.Something we do have implemented already but needs improvement upon to the best of knowledge.
What’s missing?
On this page, add some more information, so the user (developer) knows what to do next.
Why?
The user may not know what they should do next.
It's not clear what they should put in the
@licensefield, or where they should go to find a list of valid licenses.(Note: They can actually find a discussion of licenses on the "Terms of Service" page, but this was not intuitive for me. My first thought was to click the "Development" link.)
(Even when following the link Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved it doesn't really show what text needs to be pasted into the script. A couple of examples, using strings like
BSD-3-ClauseandGPLmight help.)Suggestion
Make the page look like this, with:
Alternative
Allow scripts scripts without a license to be imported, but give them the MIT license by default.