Come together with the global Drupal community in Rotterdam, 28 Sept – 1 Oct 2026. Sessions, contribution, connection, and Early Bird savings until 8 June.Problem/Motivation
Prior to distribution we should determine the license to use for this project. Drupal.org projects are generally expected to distribute under GPL Version 2: https://www.drupal.org/about/licensing#project-licensing.
But as @fago pointed out on slack: https://drupal.slack.com/archives/C016N3HTHRD/p1669886843523379?thread_t... The GPL license is problematic for client side JS as the license applies to everything else in the bundle. Using an MIT license was proposed instead, but that poses some challenges from a general Drupal licensing perspective.
Remaining tasks
* Determine the license to use.
* Update the license in the codebase.
* Determine if we need to work with the licensing working group (#licensing or https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal_lwg) on issues related to licensing for general projects.
Issue fork api_client-3367042
Show commands
Start within a Git clone of the project using the version control instructions.
Or, if you do not have SSH keys set up on git.drupalcode.org:
changes
Comments
Comment #2
brianperryComment #4
brianperryIn support of our Open Collective submission I added the GPL-2.0-or-later license to the repository.
We can still discuss alternatives, but wanted to make sure the repository reflected where we'd be if no action was taken.
Comment #5
brianperryComment #6
brianperryI'm thinking it makes sense to work through this as part of our proposal to the Drupal JS maintainers.
Edit: I did reference this licensing concern on the issue on the ideas queue.
Comment #7
brianperry@fago helpfully raised this issue once again on Twitter.
Having GPL currently is a combination of the source being on Drupal gitlab (I read that as being implied here: https://drupal.org/about/licensing#content-license) and also needing to have a license in the repo early on when establishing an Open Collective.
I'd be open to changing this if possible, and agree that it would be a good discussion for the community. MIT was proposed as an alternative, which I personally prefer. It is also the common standard in the projects that we have modeled this work on.
I'll look at trying to start discussion with the licensing working group. Might also be able to catch someone face to face in Portland if necessary.
Comment #8
brianperryDiscussion on this topic in Drupal #licensing slack: https://drupal.slack.com/archives/C204BR9ML/p1714924304161589
Need to figure out concrete next steps, but it sounds like we might have a path forward here.
Comment #9
brianperryCreated the following issue in the LWG project as a next step: https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal_lwg/issues/3447461
Comment #13
brianperryMarking as fixed. Based on the general agreement with the LWG I've published a release of our packages that uses an MIT license: https://www.drupal.org/project/api_client/issues/3389581
Comment #14
brianperry