GPL-2.0-or-later license not accepted?

[symfony]

GPL-2.0-or-later license not accepted?

[dunglas]

As a fervent advocate of GPL/AGPL for end users software, I'm in favor of allowing them.
However, we should not accept them for official recipes, and if we accept them here, we must display a warning pointing to the FSF website explaining the implications of this license (basically, you cannot use them for a non-open source software in some cases).

[nicolas-grekas]

"recipes-contrib" is a very loosely opinionated repository, but it is still opinionated: copyleft licences are not accepted since day 1. The rationale is that Symfony is a project that targets professionals and enterprises. Copyleft licenses create legal risks because they need extra care. Not accepting them makes Symfony devs safe by default.
People that know how to deal with these licenses should also be perfectly capable of providing alternatives to this repository.
I agree with this policy personally as it's aligned with Symfony's mission statement.

👎 to accept anything else than MIT and the likes.

[fabpot]

We only accept MIT-like licenses, so no GPL.

[emodric]

Can anyone help with this? @fabpot maybe? I'd like to round up my contributions to recipes so I can start using Flex soon :)

[emodric]

@fabpot What could possibly be the reason for that?

https://spdx.org/licenses/ says that GPL 2.0 or later is both FSF free/libre and OSI approved, just like MIT is, so I don't see a reason why GPL 2.0+ should be denied.

Is there a chance this could be re-evaluated, since I think that choice of license (which in this instance is a true, open source license) for a project should not be a deciding factor for it to be denied increase in developer experience when installing and using it. I'd understand if this policy were for official recipes repo (which it probably is), but I think it's a little bit discriminatory for "contrib" recipes.

[emodric]

Warning is fine as long as it doesn't make the user believe that they're doing something wrong, basically spreading FUD. Using GPL licensed packages is in most cases perfectly fine so singleing out packages or scaring users is definitely not desireable.

[sroze]

basically, you cannot use them for a non-open source software in some cases

Which is a massive limitation isn't it? 🤔

[emodric]

What are those cases exactly?

eZ Platform, which is also licensed with GPL2, and could greatly benefit from Flex, is perfectly usable in a non-open source context, where you deliver the project code to your client, just by deploying on their servers, therefore satisfying the license, without open sourcing the codebase to the public. How is that a case for disallowing eZ Platform, for example, from integrating with Flex, as long as recipes themselves are MIT licensed?

[dunglas]

It’s not a limitation, it’s the spirit of copyleft and it’s totally fair: to use free software, the deal is to contribute back.

[emodric]

I said it on Twitter, I don't think it's your job to police your users. I'd understand the policy if it were for the official recipes repo, or if it was a standalone tool. But, since Flex is a plugin for Composer, the decision does not make sense at all.