Add a paragraph about compatible licenses

[ttoine]

next step should be to add a paragraph about technical requirements

[Quetzacoalt91]

Hi @ttoine,

There is a list of accepted licenses in https://devdocs.prestashop.com/1.7/modules/sell/techvalidation-checklist/#license-is-compatible. To avoid duplicated / obsolete content, is there anything to update on the other page?

[ttoine]

Good point, thanks.

You can add Apache to the list on this page, and remove OSL from the list on the "module page". Currently, modules must be in AFL, not in OSL. And while this is possible to add AFL code in OSL, the opposite is not really possible.
Also note that this list is important for native modules, but also for third party modules made available on Addons

I will add CC licenses for the artwork stuff in the "contributing guidelines" page, this is missing.

[PierreRambaud]

duplicate content

[ttoine]

I have added a few other licenses, regarding code and artwork.
@Quetzacoalt91 I think that might be interesting.

@PierreRambaud what should be removed ? the legal compliance of the core, and of a module is not exactly the same (at least, OSL code is not really possible in modules)

[eternoendless]

Are you certain about this? We are currently using these flags for example, which don't specify one of the aforementioned licenses: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/flags/

[ttoine]

certain about what ? artistic / unlicense? or public domain? or both?

[ttoine]

I checked famfamfam icons pack. There is a readme that give more information:
"These icons are public domain, and as such are free for any use (attribution appreciated but not required)"

I guess that thanks to the small additional information in the readme, we are safe. But this is very light.

However, in general, it would be better if this kind of dependency could be in CC-0, as this license includes a workaround for countries where public domain does not exist.

If we use a set of icons (e.g material) that includes flags, with a good license, maybe we should use them instead.

[ttoine]

Additional information: just keep in mind that open source licenses are used to give right to the users and protect them when they use the software (use, study, modify, redistribute)

If there is nothing explained in a package regarding the protection of users and what they can do and not do, then usually, both FSF and OSI recommendation is to avoid it.

[PierreRambaud]

Thanks @ttoine

[ttoine]

yw :-)