Can extensions be submitted under MIT?

[danieltj]

The rules on this are unclear.

https://www.phpbb.com/extensions/rules- ... /#licenses

• Extensions should be released under GPL v2. Included frameworks should use GPL v2 or a compatible license. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... patibility.
• A license.txt file should be included in the root directory of the extension.

It doesn't say extensions must be released under GPL, it says they should but should isn't definitive. Licenses like the MIT license are just as open and it's commonly used by many open source projects.

Can I get some clarification on this please? I did search for this but nothing obvious appeared in results.

[ssl]

Extensions rules: Licensing your Extension

[Paul]

Extension in the cdb must be gplv2

[danieltj]

The licensing rules should be updated to reflect that then. The wording isn't clear but thanks for the reply.

Extensions rules: Licensing your Extension

Section 2A states the following:

Code: Select all

The phpBB Software is released under the GNU GPL v2 and extension authors are encouraged to release their extensions under this license as this is the most compatible license for usage of extensions for phpBB.

Again, it doesn't say you have to. It's actually more lenient than the page I linked to. The link you shared states it's 'encouraged'.

[Paul]

It is implied via 2c basically, as you always depend on phpBB code. However i agree it should be more clear.

[bonelifer]

I've always read that as implying we'd rather you use GPL2, rather than GPL3. It should be less vague.

[Paul]

You cant use gpl v3 as phpBB is released under gpl v2, and not gpl v2 or later or gpl v3, and gpl v2 and gpl v3 are incompatible.

[Gumboots]

It doesn't say extensions must be released under GPL, it says they should but should isn't definitive. Licenses like the MIT license are just as open and it's commonly used by many open source projects.

Can I get some clarification on this please? I did search for this but nothing obvious appeared in results.

Clause 2C seems perfectly clear and ironclad to me.

I agree there are other excellent licenses*, but since phpBB itself is GPL v2 there's not much point insisting on anything else for extensions. Anyone who is using phpBB is already bound by GPL v2 anyway, so why bother trying to fight it? It may not be everyone's idea of perfect, but it works.

*My personal favourite is WTFPL, with ISC being a close second.