ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent wrongly assumes that any license in dc.rights is a CC license

[abelgomez]

Describe the bug

The ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent, which is rendered for any untyped item, wrongly assumes that any value in dc.rights is a valid CC license.

To Reproduce

Create an untyped item, set dc.rights and dc.rights.uri, and see a section in the item with the title "Creative Commons license".

Expected behavior

The title of the license section should only mention Creative Commons if dc.rights is a valid CC license.

I think that ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent should be renamed to ItemPageLicenseFieldComponent. If dc.rights.uri points to a valid CC license, it should work as the current ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent. If dc.rights/dc.rights.uri have other type of license, the component should render the license text as specified in dc.rights.

Related work

This should be considered before implementing #3167.

[amgciadev]

We have encountered this too and we solve it by simply amending the label: "item.page.cc.license.title": "Rights and licensing". Happy to submit a PR. Label item.page.cc.license.title could also be renamed to: item.page.license.title to be more generic?

[abelgomez]

@amgciadev that would serve too.

However, I think that changing the label can be a temporary solution that can be applied on a use-case basis to specific installations (using the translation files) until the underlying issue is solved. That is: the component's name (and label key) are misleading since it does not do any check about the CC license.

I think that refactoring the ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent is the way to go. However, that would be a breaking change. Is that acceptable, @tdonohue ?

I'm also happy to submit a PR with the refactoring (in fact, it's in my to-do list together with some other open issues), but I'm a bit busy these days, and that would have to wait a few weeks.

Cheers!

[tdonohue]

@abelgomez : I'm not against a refactor here to try to determine if a license is actually a CC license before displaying it as such. As long as it doesn't break existing sites which use dc.rights to store CC License (and I don't think it should), then it could be backported to 7.x and 8.x.

I'll assign this to you @abelgomez since it sounds like you want to claim it (to do in a few weeks time).

[abelgomez]

Hi @tdonohue , it won't break existing sites using the default template, but it may break existing sites with modifications or custom templates relying on the ItemPageCcLicenseFieldComponent since we don't know how developers have used it.

But I think it can be done with minimal impact, and in any case this kind of breaking changes are not rare (e.g., the migration to "standalone" components between Dspace 7 and 8 has been quite painful for me 😊).

We can address in this upcoming PR the related issue #3167.

[abelgomez]

Hi @tdonohue ,

I have started to work on this in #3338, and I'm near to have a proposal to fix this issue. Nevertheless, I'm still drafting the PR and the documentation.

In the meantime, I have a question: I started this work in the 8_x branch (since it was marked as in project DSpace 8.x and 7.6.x Maintenance.

Should I create the PR against the main branch instead?

[tdonohue]

@abelgomez : Yes, I'd recommend PRs almost always be created against main. The only exception is when the code changes do not affect the main branch. So, please do update your PR to be against main.