Skip to content

Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bundles #5620

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bundles #5620

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e235082
Changed the recommendation about the LICENSE file for third-party bun…
javiereguiluz Aug 11, 2015
79bed38
Reworded the desription about the used license
javiereguiluz Aug 18, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 3 additions & 5 deletions cookbook/bundles/best_practices.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -83,9 +83,8 @@ The basic directory structure of an AcmeBlogBundle must read as follows:
├─ AcmeBlogBundle.php
├─ Controller/
├─ README.md
├─ LICENSE
├─ Resources/
│ ├─ meta/
│ │ └─ LICENSE
│ ├─ config/
│ ├─ doc/
│ │ └─ index.rst
Expand All @@ -102,9 +101,8 @@ that automated tools can rely on:
* ``README.md``: This file contains the basic description of the bundle and it
usually shows some basic examples and links to its full documentation (it
can use any of the markup formats supported by GitHub, such as ``README.rst``);
* ``Resources/meta/LICENSE``: The full license for the code. The license file
can also be stored in the bundle's root directory to follow the generic
conventions about packages;
* ``LICENSE``: The full license for the code. This license file can also be stored
in the bundle's ``Resources/meta/`` directory for backwards compatibility reasons;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is it possible to add a symlink for backward compatibility?

then i recommend this to avoid different files

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's "backwards compatibility" here? Afaik, no tool relied on this location. And this document is just a recommendation, not a strict standard.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i think @wouterj is right...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with Wouter. What if we reword it as follows:

* ``LICENSE``: The full contents of the license used by the code. The MIT license is strongly
  encouraged for publicly shared bundles.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👎 on including a recommendation about MIT. Everyone should be free to choose what they want. If anything, we can add a small sentence to make people aware that a MIT-compatible license is the most usefull for bundle users.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

then your most usefull is the same like the strongly encouraged of @javiereguiluz 😄

what if we provide a link to known licenses? so people can do their research there, or we say, that symfony and their components itself uses MIT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@OskarStark imo, "strongly encouraged" = we almost force you to choose MIT, but you may choose another license if you have very good reasons. "most usefull for your end-users" = you're free to choose another license, but be aware of license conflicts for your users.

And please note that MIT !== MIT-compatible (there are a lot more MIT-compatible licenses).

And yes, I agree that it's a good idea to link to http://choosealicense.com/

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thank you for your detailed infos @wouterj

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's make that change.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've reworded it as:

* ``LICENSE``: The full contents of the license used by the code. Most third-party
  bundles are published under the MIT license, but you can `choose any license`_;

* ``Resources/doc/index.rst``: The root file for the Bundle documentation.

The depth of sub-directories should be kept to the minimum for most used
Expand Down