Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bundles #5620
Conversation
javiereguiluz
commented
Aug 11, 2015
javiereguiluz
commented
| Q | A |
|---|---|
| Doc fix? | no |
| New docs? | yes |
| Applies to | all |
| Fixed tickets | #5599 |
|
👍 |
| can also be stored in the bundle's root directory to follow the generic | ||
| conventions about packages; | ||
| * ``LICENSE``: The full license for the code. This license file can also be stored | ||
| in the bundle's ``Resources/meta/`` directory for backwards compatibility reasons; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it possible to add a symlink for backward compatibility?
then i recommend this to avoid different files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's "backwards compatibility" here? Afaik, no tool relied on this location. And this document is just a recommendation, not a strict standard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think @wouterj is right...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with Wouter. What if we reword it as follows:
* ``LICENSE``: The full contents of the license used by the code. The MIT license is strongly
encouraged for publicly shared bundles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👎 on including a recommendation about MIT. Everyone should be free to choose what they want. If anything, we can add a small sentence to make people aware that a MIT-compatible license is the most usefull for bundle users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
then your most usefull is the same like the strongly encouraged of @javiereguiluz 😄
what if we provide a link to known licenses? so people can do their research there, or we say, that symfony and their components itself uses MIT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@OskarStark imo, "strongly encouraged" = we almost force you to choose MIT, but you may choose another license if you have very good reasons. "most usefull for your end-users" = you're free to choose another license, but be aware of license conflicts for your users.
And please note that MIT !== MIT-compatible (there are a lot more MIT-compatible licenses).
And yes, I agree that it's a good idea to link to http://choosealicense.com/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thank you for your detailed infos @wouterj
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've reworded it as:
* ``LICENSE``: The full contents of the license used by the code. Most third-party
bundles are published under the MIT license, but you can `choose any license`_;
|
like your change! |
|
👍 |
2 similar comments
|
👍 |
|
👍 |
|
Thanks Javier. |
…rd-party bundles (javiereguiluz) This PR was squashed before being merged into the 2.3 branch (closes #5620). Discussion ---------- Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bundles | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Doc fix? | no | New docs? | yes | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | #5599 Commits ------- 80c67b0 Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bundles
