Simplify license logic

[amvanbaren]

@kineticsquid, can you run this PR on Gitpod and check the new license logic?

[kineticsquid]

@amvanbaren Cetainly. I have a workspace up now based a a fork of your repo using this branch. I'll create some samples to test the different scenarios.

[kineticsquid]

@amvanbaren Here are the scenarios I tried and my results. 'Prod' is current behavior. 'PR 807' are your updates. I have a fork of your repo with the test extension versions I used: https://github.com/kineticsquid/openvsx/tree/feature/issue-777. We are no longer doing the license detection, this is good. The scenarios we may need work on are 1.0.0 and 3.0.0.

• 1.0.0 No license in package.json and no license file
  - Prod: Error on publish due to lack of license
  - PR 807: Publishing does not fail. Unlicensed displayed. Was this behavior intentional? I think we want the original behavior and fail the publish. Our terms say you must have a license.

• 2.0.0 No license in package.json and license.txt file is provided:
  - Prod: Extension details page shows Provided license and links to provided license file, license.txt.
  - PR 807: Same - OK

• 3.0.0 No license in package.json and license.md file is provided:
  - Prod: Extension details page shows Provided license and links to provided license file,license.md.
  - PR 807: Link shows http:\\...file\license.md but file downloaded is f.txt. Contents or f.txt are correct. This appears to be an error.

• 4.0.0 No license in package.json and license file is provided:
  - Prod: Extension details page shows Provided license and links to provided license file, license.txt.
  - PR 807: same - OK

• 5.0.0 No license in package.json and LICENSE file is provided
  - Prod: Extension details page shows Provided license and links to provided license file, LICENSE.txt.
  - PR 807: Same - OK

• 6.0.0 No license in package.json and license.txt file is provided, that contains verbatim MIT license.
  - Prod: MIT displayed and links to license.txt. This is the behavior we wanted to change.
  - PR 807: Extension details page shows Provided license and links to provided license file, license.txt. - OK

• 7.0.0 My special license specified for license in package.json and no license file:
  - Prod: My special license is displayed with a link to https://spdx.org/licenses/My%20special%20license.html which results in a 404. This behavior we wanted to change
  - PR 807: My special license is displayed with no link. - OK

• 8.0.0 My special license specified in package.json and license file is provided:
  - Prod: My special license text is displayed with a link to the license file
  - PR 807: same - OK

• 9.0.0 My special license specified in package.json and license.txt file is provided, that contains verbatim MIT license.
  - Prod: My special license text is displayed with a link to the license file. Does not try to determine what type of license has been provided
  - PR 807: Same - OK

[amvanbaren]

Publishing does not fail. Unlicensed displayed. Was this behavior intentional? I think we want the original behavior and fail the publish. Our terms say you must have a license.

ovsx.publishing.require-license isn't set for development. On staging and production require-license is set to true.

Link shows http:\...file\license.md but file downloaded is f.txt. Contents or f.txt are correct. This appears to be an error.

File contents are stored in the database by default. On staging and production Azure Blob Storage is used instead.

[kineticsquid]

Understood, thanks.