Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
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. |
stof
Apr 26, 2013
Member
do we still have LGPL code ? Doctrine is not using LGPL anymore
do we still have LGPL code ? Doctrine is not using LGPL anymore
fabpot
Apr 26, 2013
Author
Member
Swiftmailer is LGPL and sql-formatter too.
Swiftmailer is LGPL and sql-formatter too.
jrobeson
Apr 26, 2013
i'm asking jdorn to clarify which LGPL license he actually uses. It is not specified properly in the composer.json.
i'm asking jdorn to clarify which LGPL license he actually uses. It is not specified properly in the composer.json.
fabpot
Apr 26, 2013
Author
Member
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.
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.
lsmith77
Apr 26, 2013
Contributor
if you want to do the license change a bit more formal you can use @beberlei's license manager
if you want to do the license change a bit more formal you can use @beberlei's license manager
fabpot
Apr 26, 2013
Author
Member
I prefer that people actually answer with an email, rather than clicking on an ephemeral website.
I prefer that people actually answer with an email, rather than clicking on an ephemeral website.
beberlei
Apr 26, 2013
Contributor
we can change sql formatte rto be an optional dependency if its a problem, the formatting is not really an important feature.
we can change sql formatte rto be an optional dependency if its a problem, the formatting is not really an important feature.
jrobeson
Apr 26, 2013
no problem beberlei. looks like jdorn will change it.
no problem beberlei. looks like jdorn will change it.
|
|
| @@ -59,7 +58,6 @@ public function helloAction($name) | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * @Route("/hello/admin/{name}", name="_demo_secured_hello_admin") | ||
| * @Secure(roles="ROLE_ADMIN") |
stof
Apr 26, 2013
Member
you should still secure it in another way, otherwise it will not demo the secured area
you should still secure it in another way, otherwise it will not demo the secured area
fabpot
Apr 26, 2013
Author
Member
see security.yml
see security.yml
|
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
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
this commit seems to be missing from the 2.4 branch: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@lsmith77 that is a new feature in FrameworkExtraBundle 3.0 (with expression language) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
It is indeed a different annotation |
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?