Clause 2C seems perfectly clear and ironclad to me.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.
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.
Statistics: Posted by Gumboots — Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:06 pm