removed non-MIT/BSD licensed bundles (closes #442) #535
Conversation
|
+1 |
|
👍 |
| capabilities | ||
|
|
||
| * **AcmeDemoBundle** (in dev/test env) - A demo bundle with some example | ||
| code | ||
|
|
||
| All libraries and bundles included in the Symfony Standard Edition are | ||
| released under the MIT, BSD, or LGPL license. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we still have LGPL code ? Doctrine is not using LGPL anymore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Swiftmailer is LGPL and sql-formatter too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm asking jdorn to clarify which LGPL license he actually uses. It is not specified properly in the composer.json.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jrobeson It is specified clearly in the code files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just for the record, I talked with Chris (the creator of Swiftmailer) some time ago about switching the license of Swiftmailer from LGPL to MIT and he approved. I've just sent the email to all other committers to get their approvals as well. So, let's cross our fingers, and hopefully, Swiftmailer won't be a problem anymore soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if you want to do the license change a bit more formal you can use @beberlei's license manager
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer that people actually answer with an email, rather than clicking on an ephemeral website.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we can change sql formatte rto be an optional dependency if its a problem, the formatting is not really an important feature.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no problem beberlei. looks like jdorn will change it.
|
👍 - But is there any comment from @schmittjoh? |
| @@ -59,7 +58,6 @@ public function helloAction($name) | |||
|
|
|||
| /** | |||
| * @Route("/hello/admin/{name}", name="_demo_secured_hello_admin") | |||
| * @Secure(roles="ROLE_ADMIN") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you should still secure it in another way, otherwise it will not demo the secured area
|
adding back the bundles is easy, but shouldn't a note be left to mention why this was done? and to point people where to the bundles? Something like this: |
|
👍 |
|
If @jdorn chooses lgpl 3 for sql-formatter then we run into another gpl 2 incompatibility with the profilerbundle. If he chooses lgpl 2 it will be incompatible with swiftmailer |
|
What's the problem with the ProfilerBundle? |
|
I don't mind changing SqlFormatter to MIT. Will that fix any issues? I knew absolutely nothing about licenses when I first picked one to go with. Do I need to include a LICENSE.txt file or something in the project in addition to stating it in composer.json? |
|
Generally it's wise to include a license.txt file as a lowest common denominator. I'm out of town at the moment but I'd be happy to chat with you next week in irc if you want. I used to be the Drupal Association director of legal affairs so I have some experience groking and explaining license compatibility and documentation. Thank you @fabpot ! |
|
@jdorn: changing it to MIT would simplify things for many people. |
|
FYI, it has been changed @jdorn could you tag your release ? |
|
I just tagged it v1.2.9 |
|
ok, we now have only MIT/BSD license deps for Symfony SE. |
This PR was merged into the master branch. Discussion ---------- removed non-MIT/BSD licensed bundles (closes #442) In #442, there is a discussion about the license of librairies and bundles included in the Symfony Standard Edition. This pull requests removes all non-MIT/BSDlicensed code from Symfony SE. The impact is not that big and adding back those bundles is relatively easy. Any thoughts before I merge? Commits ------- d84850a removed non-MIT/BSD licensed bundles and librairies
In #442, there is a discussion about the license of librairies and bundles included in the Symfony Standard Edition.
This pull requests removes all non-MIT/BSDlicensed code from Symfony SE. The impact is not that big and adding back those bundles is relatively easy.
Any thoughts before I merge?