[development] Module developers, please do *proper* releases !

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail at webthatworks.it
Mon Feb 18 15:30:17 UTC 2008

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:39:37 -0500
Earnie Boyd <earnie at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail at webthatworks.it>:

> > I think it is in the right of drupal infrastructure team to impose
> > minimum requirement so that your module is hosted and advertised
> > on drupal infrastructure and associated with drupal project.
> >

> Nope.  Drupal and therefore its contributed modules uses the GPL 
> license which guarantees that I can do what ever with it including 
> hosting it else where.

Exactly... then abide the rule or go elsewhere.

> > drupal project is free to impose or not impose any rule.

> Not if the rule violates the license.

It doesn't. You go elsewhere and drupal doesn't host anymore your

> > They do... and you'll have less developed modules.
> > They don't... and the the quality of modules will be lower.
> > All this reflects on the image and technical merits of drupal
> > project as a whole.
> >

> Maybe.  Or perhaps it would less favorless on the project if Drupal 
> decided not to host contributed modules at all.  There is a
> learning curve and there are suggested procedures with the
> contributed module conventions.  Enforcing them is a community
> effort and if you find a module that doesn't align with the
> suggested procedures you can open an issue with the project.

That's why they put a "please" in the subject. It is a matter of
compromising. There are several options available and kicking out
from drupal space dev that don't respect rules chosen by the
community is a *possible* and *legit* choice with *pros* and *cons*,
it doesn't mean it is the best.
eg. I don't know if there is any policy about contrib modules with
serious sec issues that don't get fixed, but it is reasonable there
could be one, including putting a big "shame on you" label on the
module page or taking the project out of drupal site...

> > It doesn't look scandalous.

> Yes it does because what you propose violates the license.

No. You're not required to offer free bandwidth to the GPLed software
authors... especially if you distribute the source "together" with
the "executable".

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo

More information about the development mailing list