[TYPO3-50-general] FLOW3CGL license header/annotation check

Tim Eilers tim.eilers at web.de
Thu Jan 15 23:06:22 CET 2009


Hi Karsten,

the original check code is from me, Malte just changed the text. I
prepared an answer yesterday, but was to tired to finish it ;)

Karsten Dambekalns schrieb:
> Hi Malte et al.
> 
> First things first: there is no need to have everything FLOW3 being
> released as LGPL. Your packages can be GPL as well.

Phew, im not that into the differences between the licences. Malte
should decide that ;D

> 
> Thus, after looking at r1743 (Adjustment of Check for Copyright.
> Checking for new copyright header) I think the checks need to allow for
> more flexible checking.

The original came from the days where there was only one copyright header :)
+1 for more flexible checking

> 
> * The header comment only reads "This script belongs to the FLOW3
> framework." for the FLOW3 package itself. Other packages differ in that
> line.

Ok, i see. That is possible to change. You already discussed that in
this thread as i saw.
@Malte
The Packagekey is choosen in our frontend, why can't we use that?

> * The license may be GPL as well, probably even other (L)GPL compatible
> licenses, or (for things being developed commercially) even something
> completely different.

That is VERY difficult. The terms dealing with the licenses could be
completely different for another license, so the check makes no sense at
all (i could then at least check the first line and the last, but
nothing more).
I would suggest another way: We check the texts for GPL and LGPL and
just put out warnings if it is different.
I believe FLOW3CGL is mostly used by people who are core developers or
contribute packages under (L)GPL.
That few people using other licenses have to live with the warnings, if
they even use FLOW3CGL to check their code.

> * The @license annotation is a must, though, and should be consistent
> within a package.

That is no problem.

@Malte
Can i get something from the frontend in the check? On the last time
trying to understand your code the two models where strongly divided
from each other...
Perhaps you should answer that in private mail ;)

> 
> Maybe the expected license and package key can be given to the tool, so
> it can adjust the checks based on that.

Package key should be no problem. For expected license i suggest a drop
down box in the FLOW3CGL frontend which says "LGPL", "GPL", "other",
since FLOW3CGL can't guess it. "other" could deactivate the check, which
could avoid the warnings i mentioned above.

> Give that a thought.

Done. :)

> 
> Regards,
> Karsten

Cheers,
Timmy.


More information about the TYPO3-project-5_0-general mailing list