I don't think Lukas is suggesting the constriction of plugin development. Rather, he's suggesting that symfony should not host plugins that have a license that is not supported by the symfony community.
In short, you can use whatever licensing terms that you want. But if you want the license hosted by symfony, then it has to be one of the "approved" licenses. Otherwise, the developer is responsible for hosting and advertising themselves. With so many licenses floating around out there, it's very easy to get confused about what conflicts with what. As a struggling independent developer, I don't have the time to become enough of a lawyer to know which licenses will conflict with which project I'm working on. It would be nice to know, for certain, that that plugin I pulled off of the symfony plugin repository will not conflict with anything license wise because it uses the same or a similar license to symfony itself. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to come up with a tag in the plugin repository that labels a plugin as "unsupported license" or something similar? Charley Dustin Whittle wrote: > Lukas, > > I agree with the concern, but we shouldn't force plugins to use a particular > license. It doesn't matter if it is BSD or MIT or LGPL. Its just that the > GPL is too restrictive.. At the end of the day it is the developers > responsibility to understand what plugins come with what license. Yes, we > will find developers that reimplement a particular plugin, but we are not > restricting what is available. I have found that most of the time developers > simply choose a license with out knowing what it means and with a quick > email to the author, they are usually will to change it to be less > restrictive. > > I do not think it makes sense to constrict plugin development based on the > license alone. > > - Dustin > > > On 9/19/07 1:09 PM, "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dustin Whittle wrote: >>> Lukas, >>> >>> I think we should allow all plugins. We just need to make sure the licenses >> I think this is a very bad idea. This essentially means that a lot of >> people will run into situations where they need to reimplement a plugin >> just for licensing reasons. This dillutes the community as we support >> redundant plugins. And as you point out, most of us are pretty much set >> on the MIT license given that symfony is licensed under the MIT license. >> So most of us will expect the plugins to be licensed under the MIT or >> similar license. >> >> regards, >> Lukas >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony users" group. To post to this group, send email to symfony-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
