document license :trial

[rolandwalker]

This is styled as a PR, but intended for discussion.

Is license :trial useful?

• does it cover many Casks?
• can it be clearly and objectively defined?
• if clearly defined, is it also fully distinct from :freemium

If yes, we can document it, as it already exists. If no, we should delete it from the code.

There is a third possible answer, that the name :trial was badly chosen, and that something else like :limited would be useful. :trial could be considered part of DSL 1.0, as the forward-compatibility code is already present. :limited or some other substitute would have to wait.

In any case, my priority is to maximize discussion here, and minimize decision-making per-Cask.

Refs #8017, #6426, #7917, #7923, #5586
cc @Amorymeltzer, @vitorgalvao, @ndr-qef

[tapeinosyne]

My uneasiness with license values more descriptive than :commercial leads me to defer this decision. However, I should still like to offer some comments.

Considering our current set of legal values, the inclusion of :trial seems preferable to that of :limited. Without consulting our documentation, :limited would be insufficiently distinct from :freemium, while “trial” has a common, definite meaning of “time-limited”.

does [:trial] cover many Casks?

Yes, according to most definitions. Caskable software must be publicly downloadable, which commonly entails packages with trial periods. (Indeed, most :commercial casks would likely be converted to :trial.)

[vitorgalvao]

Indeed, most :commercial casks would likely be converted to :trial.

I’ve been thinking about this, and I agree in the sense that only one of them should remain — either :commercial or :trial should be included, but not both.

I’ve said of :trial that it

would (naturally) encourage the inclusion of trial software that cannot be upgraded once downloaded with homebrew-cask (such as MAS-only apps).

and while I still believe that, I’m not so sure anymore that it would be a huge problem.

That said, :commercial still sounds more correct, in a way. “Downloading a trial” feels to me like downloading a limited app — be it a time limit, or a feature limit (:freemium) — that will stay that way forever (meaning you’d have to download a different file to get the full app). That’s not what they are, though, they’re the full app with a (removable) limitation on top.

[Amorymeltzer]

$0.02: This is sort of what I was seeking clarification on in #7917 but like @vitorgalvao I don't now see a meaningful distinction between :commercial and :trial. The cask system is ideally being used for more than 7/14/30 days; at the end of the brief trial period, by definition all :trial software would be indistinguishable from :commercial. As @ndr-qef said, almost all :commercial casks would likely be migrated, with just a handful remaining.

:commercial is clear enough for users to know what they're getting into, and the distinction gain from :trial doesn't seem to justify the added cruft.

[rolandwalker]

Some might have preferred to use :trial all along instead of :commercial. Others prefer :commercial. But consensus is strong that they both are not needed.

Since :commercial is already documented and in use, renaming it would be disruptive. Thus :trial should be deleted. Closing.