On 13.07.2010, at 21:42, Johannes wrote: > I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind allowing only the four > licenses stated in the Developer FAQ: > > "The symfony plugin section only lists plugins that are released under > a license similar to the symfony one. (...) > The following licenses are accepted: MIT, BSD, LGPL, and PHP. " > > I think the Apache License should be included here as it is similar to > the symfony one, and has some benefits over the BSD, and MIT. See also > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40100/apache-licence-vs-bsd-vs-mit >
I think the current selection of license was limited to the above to also reduce the number of licenses people using plugins need to understand, not because there aren't other equally permissive licenses out there. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected] -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
