On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Anatol Belski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 14:26 -0700, Hannes Magnusson wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Anatol Belski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Commit: f49cf969de7ff71fbd96b5814cc0ca8695c9b0b5 >> > Author: Anatol Belski <[email protected]> Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:57:33 >> > +0200 >> > Parents: 78cc88deae3cdce68ddab5ac035bdb76122986e2 >> > Branches: old_auth >> > >> > Link: >> > http://git.php.net/?p=web/pecl.git;a=commitdiff;h=f49cf969de7ff71fbd96b5814cc0ca8695c9b0b5 >> > >> > Log: >> > check for the LICENSE or COPYING presence in tarballs >> > >> > Changed paths: >> > M public_html/release-upload.php >> > >> > >> > Diff: >> > diff --git a/public_html/release-upload.php >> > b/public_html/release-upload.php >> > index 221f941..ffc8842 100644 >> > --- a/public_html/release-upload.php >> > +++ b/public_html/release-upload.php >> > @@ -89,8 +89,27 @@ do { >> > $errors[] = 'package.xml v1 format is not supported >> > anymore, please update your package.xml to 2.0. '; >> > break; >> > } >> > - $display_form = false; >> > - $display_verification = true; >> > + >> > + $license_found = false; >> > + foreach ($info->getFileList() as $file_name => $file_data) { >> > + if ("doc" != $file_data["role"]) { >> > + continue; >> > + } >> > + >> > + /* Don't compare with basename($file_data["name"]), the >> > license has >> > + to be in the package root. */ >> > + if (in_array($file_data["name"], array("LICENSE", >> > "COPYING"))) { >> > + $license_found = true; >> >> >> Is there a reason for a explicit check of these file names? >> What if it ends in .txt, .md, .rst, .html, .ps, .doc or whatever? >> >> Also, this is a epic change in uploading releases procedures and >> requires a gigantic notice and weeks of headsup to all pecl ext >> authors. >> Please revert this asap so people can continue uploading their >> releases. We need to give people time to adjust. >> > > Here one can read why the file is LICENSE or COPYING, that's the > standard way. > > http://producingoss.com/en/license-quickstart.html#license-quickstart-applying
Since the inception of github, more and more projects have these files as .md, and I used to see a good chunk of projects that used .txt many years ago. There no legal or any imaginable requirement that prohibits this. Its simply a convention. File extensions make things easy for the user and can alter the rendering of the file, so its perfectly fine to name it .md or .txt. > Another point is that you keep repeating "windows" while the relation to > any binary distribution was clearly stated. The point just has come, > where the need for clear license information is collapsed for multiple Well, we currently only support source distribution, and Windows binaries. We don't provide other binaries at the moment. If my mentioning of Windows was of any shame to you, then I apologize. It was only meant to note that the due to the inclusion of the Windows build system some breaking changes have been made. > parties. It's needed for binary distributions under windows and linux. > Yes, we can parse package.xml, the google search and even files named > schnitzel, but is that the goal? And that'll never work properly anyway. > And whil a PECL package contains source only, there are reasons as well > to put a separate license file in there, for more here for instance If you don't want to do filename matching, wouldn't then adding a role="license" be a better choice? Then I can do whatever schnitzel I want as the author, even include two or more licensing options (or, requirements, as is the case when extensions bundle other things). > more already has a license file. In fact, many of the really active > projects already had the lic file included by themselves before this > change. So who needs the mommy? Excellent! And they all (RFC 2119) SHOULD. But just because they should, doesn't mean we need to error out if its not there. > Concerns about the efforts of putting one file into the source code, > aren't that blanks? That is just a one time action except some project Sure. But unfortunately we have a problem with one of the main extensions here, namely oci8. This is a huge issue for legal reasons for them. And what about the extensions that bundle external library, for example pecl/zip, which both Pierre and Remi are the authors of.. How are you including the license of libzip? > In any case, I really hold what is done for right. While it's left to > everyones personal judgement. In my opinion that has something to do > with respecting your own work. It has to do with playing in team with > downstream distributors and respecting their work, as well as everyones > else. And it has to do with what OSS spirit is. Sure, we could force people to rename their license file, but why should they have to? And what about those who need to distribute multiple files? Or those who legally cannot add it? -Hannes -- PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
