Details
-
Type: Improvement
-
Status: Won't Do
-
Priority: Trivial
-
Resolution: Won't Do
-
Affects Version/s: 4.4.0
-
Fix Version/s: Unscheduled
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Versioning Impact:Patch (backwards-compatible bug fixes)
Description
Was the FSF specific about putting the GPL licensing file at the root level of the package? I think that's is confusing people (like myself) when looking at the license. The the Drupal.org Whitelist, we tend to go by what's included in the code vs. what's printed on a page or in a FAQ. Ideally these will be the same, but not always. We've run into this issue with CKEditor where the website displays a GPLv3 logo but the files included in the repos indicate difference licenses https://drupal.org/node/1996750
If the only part of CiviCRM that's licensed as AGPLv3 and/or GPLv2, would it make sense to move https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/master/gpl.txt to https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-drupal
Then each repo would indicate the license of the files in it with the exception of https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-packages which requires digging into each package for a license like https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-packages/blob/master/backbone/backbone.js