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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
