New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update composer.json #7

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 23, 2012

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@igorw
Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Apr 21, 2012

Some changes.

You may also want to consider adding a LICENSE file and specifying the version of the GPL by using "GPLv2" or "GPLv3" or "MIT".

@tobiassjosten

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

tobiassjosten commented Apr 22, 2012

Thanks! Could you clarify though why type and homepage isn't suitable for this?

I'm leaning more towards the GPL than MIT myself, but I'll give it some serious reconsideration before settling on one and adding the LICENSE file. Good suggestion.

@igorw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Apr 22, 2012

Well, if you really do want a type, you could use "silex-service-provider". But since nothing has been defined yet, I'm not sure if we should use one.

As for homepage, basically you already have the repository URL on packagist, adding the homepage will make the URL show up twice.

tobiassjosten added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2012

@tobiassjosten tobiassjosten merged commit 777455a into tobiassjosten:master Apr 23, 2012

@tobiassjosten

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

tobiassjosten commented Apr 23, 2012

No preference. Thanks for explaining!

@tobiassjosten

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

tobiassjosten commented Apr 26, 2012

After some research I've added the MPL 2.0 license now.

http://vvv.tobiassjosten.net/open-source/open-source-licenses-and-the-asshole-clause

Hope this format doesn't break anything in Packagist? I tried searching but it doesn't seem to index licenses. Either way I found some "Apache 1.1" licensed projects, so I'm hoping "Mozilla Public License 2.0" is good enough.

@igorw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Apr 26, 2012

It doesn't really matter, but the preferred format would be "Apache2", "Apache1.1" and I guess "MPL2".

Seems like it is quite similar to LGPL, so I guess it is possible to use it. Not many people use the MPL. If you want to make things easier for users, maybe take another look at LGPL. It seems to me that it does what you want. Doctrine is using the LGPL, for example.

@tobiassjosten

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

tobiassjosten commented Apr 26, 2012

I did look into LGPL as well but what eventually drove me away was that it requires you to:

Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.

... which I don't want to force upon anyone wanting to use this service provider. So I'll stick with MPL but change the license code in composer.json.

Thanks for your feedback!

@igorw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Apr 26, 2012

Very fair point, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment