Docs: Include a note about supported licenses in WordPress packages #66562
Conversation
gziolo
added
[Type] Developer Documentation
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Flaky tests detected in 6dbc9ce. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/11575325110
|
packages/README.md
Outdated
| @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ When creating a new package, you need to provide at least the following. Package | |||
| } | |||
| ``` | |||
|
|
|||
| Both `wpScript` and `wpScriptModuleExports` may be included if the package exposes both a script and a script module. | |||
| Both `wpScript` and `wpScriptModuleExports` may be included if the package exposes both a script and a script module. These fields are also essential when performing a license check for all their dependencies, because they trigger strict validation against compatibility with GPL2. All remaining dependencies WordPress doesn't distribute but uses for development purposes can contain also a few other OSS compatible licenses. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if a package is published to npm but not used in WordPress core itself as a script or script module. Wouldn't that still need to comply with the GPL?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a tricky one. I think @wordpress/react-i18n is one of these packages that isn't used in WordPress core but is still published to npm. I see it is annotated as wpScript 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I landed as is but I’ll keep thinking how to better represent these meta information.
I have also started wondering whether all WordPress development packages can be considered GPL v2 if they depend on broader OSS compatible licenses. However it’s outside of my area expertise.
Co-authored-by: Pascal Birchler <[email protected]>
…ordPress#66562) * Docs: Include a note about supported licenses in WordPress packages * Update README.md * Update packages/README.md Co-authored-by: Pascal Birchler <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Pascal Birchler <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: gziolo <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: swissspidy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: sirreal <[email protected]>
What?
Follow-up for #66428.
Raise in the comments https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/66428/files#r1816140475:
Why?
Ensure that production packages are marked accordingly.
How?
Include a note in the documentation.