mandatory license for SoftwarePackage seems problematic

29/01/2013

The specs define SoftwarePackage:license as being 1...*

While it is great to expect an ADMS.SW service of some kind to serve only files whose license are known, it seems to me a bit too strong a requirement for every ADMS.SW uses.

For instance, the FusionForge File Release System has no mention of the license of the downloadable files.

The validation is then problematic... or there should be a special license "unknown" mentioned in this case, to eliminate any ambiguity ?

Component

Documentation

Category

bug
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.