Re: Re: com web/pecl: Strongly recommend including a licesnse, but not require it: public_html/release-upload.php

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > >> +1, and considering how little discussion was taking place before >> making the license file mandatory. >> >> On Oct 13 the license issue was brought up when discussing the new >> windows build integration for pecl(which I guess would be easy to miss >> if you aren't really interested or care about the windows builds), >> then the change was implemented the next day. > > Sounds like a pretty unilateral decision too... and something I've not > noticed on the lists - and I read most of it. > >> Would it be ok if this grace period is kept for the end of this year, >> then turning this back into an error? > > Actually, I don't think we should force people to use a licencing file > at all. As a warning, absolutely, but just requiring this to make a > release is silly. It would break a lot of extensions in pecl/*/trunk > right now *after* the packages are made, git add LICENSE add LICENSE to package.xml git commit -m"add LICENSE" package.xml git push origin pecl package package.xml five minutes chrono. kthby. > and that's not even thinking > about the pecl extensions not in PECL. Why should we care about extensions not in PECL? Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org