Comments

cyberswat’s picture

cyberswat commented

created #1923884: d.o. packaging whitelist

rickmanelius’s picture

rickmanelius commented
Status: Active » Reviewed & tested by the community

I reviewed all the requirements posted here
http://drupal.org/node/1475972#whitelist-criteria

And unless I'm missing something, this library meets all the requirements. Setting to RBTC.

manarth’s picture

manarth commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work
  1. Check to see if your library is already included in the list of existing whitelist entries. If so, you're set; nothing to do here!

It looks like PHPCAS is already in the whitelist (http://drupal.org/packaging-whitelist?page=1) - http://drupal.org/node/1404392

Is that a different version? Can you elaborate the differences between what you've proposed, and the existing PHPCAS entry in the whitelist?

cyberswat’s picture

cyberswat commented
Status: Needs work » Active

Are the search capabilities broken?

http://drupal.org/packaging-whitelist?keys=phpcas
http://drupal.org/packaging-whitelist?keys=cas

cyberswat’s picture

cyberswat commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

#1706506: Packaging whitelist URLs page - Search does not yield any results they are ... I'll take further comments to that issue.

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented
Status: Closed (duplicate) » Needs work

Here we again have the problem that Apache 2.0 is incompatible with GPL 3 but not 2.

NB: edited.

redndahead’s picture

redndahead commented

hmm it was BSD #1403620: PHPCAS

Wish we could finally move to GPL v3

cyberswat’s picture

cyberswat commented

What are next steps for this issue? I found http://groups.drupal.org/node/211698 but it seems the conversation has stagnated?

kreynen’s picture

kreynen commented
Status: Needs work » Postponed

https://drupal.org/node/1475972#whitelist-licenses was updated to make it clearer which licenses will be approved.

Apache 2.0 cannot be whitelisted until something like #1449452: Give installation profiles/distributions GPLv3+ license as option for packaged downloads moves forward.

kreynen’s picture

kreynen commented
Issue summary: View changes
Parent issue: » #1449452: Give installation profiles/distributions GPLv3+ license as option for packaged downloads
cyberswat’s picture

cyberswat commented
Status: Postponed » Closed (works as designed)

The holy war between gplv2 and gplv3 is alive and well in other issues .. This issue is not about that.