Licences (en-UK) can't be an array

[jbonnet]

In our schemata, licences (using en-UK) are currently specified as being an array. I don't see any valid use case for such a model, do you? Shouldn't a licence be either absent (so we'd consider the service/function as being 'public') or present, as in

licence:
  type: "public"

or

licence:
  type: "private"
  url: "http://some.url"

(url being mandatory in the case of a private type of licence)

Note the singular form and en-UK licence.

[santiagordguez]

Hi @jbonnet , @mbredel

There could be multiple licence types per service based on, for example, the number of simultaneous connections, regional restrictions, user profile (bronze/silver/gold), etc.

With our simplification (public/private for both instantiation and package creation avoiding public-private combinations) it could be enough only one element instead of an array unless we consider instantiation and package creation separately. E.g: public instantiation and private packaging, only public instantiation, etc... but this would increase the complexity of out licence model.

[jbonnet]

@srodriguezOPT in my understanding, the examples you give should be treated at the licence level. If more than one licence (an array) is given, how should the GK know which one to check?

[santiagordguez]

@jbonnet

I was thinking in a generic way. If we want to impact/collaborate in the standard definition, maybe we should set this field as an array due to the possibility to define several licences to the same service.

It's the customer who selects the licences that match with its needs and the gatekeeper should check all of them (all the licence instances that were created with its selection) by type.

In our case and with our simplification we all agree that one licence in the descriptor is enough (public/private type) but what format will we use?

licence: {
  type: "private",
  url: "http://some.url"
}

or

licences: [
     {
         type: "private",
         url: "http://some.url"
      }
]

always using licences[0].

What do you think?

[jbonnet]

@srodriguezOPT
Hmm... I see... I had never thought of it in that way (several licences). It could be like... an Apple Store licence and a Google Play (read Android) licence? My doubts are when there are two conflicting licences, like one public and one private...