RFC: License header / file doc comment change

Just had a look at the new license header in the Flow Development Collection:

/*                                                                        *
 * This script belongs to the Flow framework.                             *
 *                                                                        *
 * It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under    *
 * the terms of the MIT license.                                          *
 *                                                                        */

since we need to adjust the doc comments in Neos still anyway, I suggest to take the opportunity to get this straight also for Flow. What I’d like to change and suggest is to include a reference to the Neos project, add copyright information and refer to the LICENSE file. I’d also like to change the formatting a bit, like so:

 * This file is part of the XY package.
 * (c) Contributors of the Neos Project - www.neos.io
 * For the full copyright and license information, please view the LICENSE file
 * which was distributed with this source code.

If you agree, I can prepare a patch for Flow and Neos.

1 Like

Uhm, what’s wrong with the way it is?
Or to rephrase why should we remove the MIT reference and add a copyright?

Fine with me. The current header is what I came up with and IIRC only @christianm gave some feedback. I think that was during the sprint, still… Whatever. The easier the better, so I’m all in for dropping the “right border”. Adding the link makes sense. I tend to think the copyright line is not needed (for the law, at least), but I’d be fine with having it. Gives a hint, if the file “just floats somewhere”.

Yeah ok, right border would be great to get rid off. +1 for a link to the project website, -1 for copyright and no direct MIT reference.

Only small issues, but

  • it’s very likely not a “script”
  • it does not belong to the Flow framework because the Flow framework is not a person
  • does “Form” belong to the Flow framework or to the Neos CMS?
  • the asterisks on the right hand side are not recognised by all parsers correctly (for example by Discourse)
  • we should not mention the license directly but instead refer to the LICENSE file, because that one is authoritative
  • if a file ends up somewhere with out the package context (Gist etc), it’s nice to have a reference to www.neos.io

It’s one header which can be used for all files of the Neos Project, you simply have to change the package name.

So, I am convinced. How does deciding this work now? :wink:

Let’s have a quick poll, I’ll close it on Friday.

  • Agree to the new header
  • Abstain / don’t care
  • Against the new header, discuss again

0 voters

I am almost convinced but still would like to make clear this is open source in the header. Like this it looks pretty much closed without checking LICENSE

@christianm okay, why not – something like this?

 * This file is part of the Neos.Media package.
 * (c) Contributors of the Neos Project - www.neos.io
 * The Neos.Media package is Open Source Software. For the full copyright and license
 * information, please view the LICENSE file which was distributed with this source code.
1 Like

:+1: (out of laziness I would change it to This package is Open Source Software.... to not include the package name twice) Btw. generally including the package name means no easy automated checks for the header possible.


We can still create a regex for that and, for example, have some live template in PhpStorm creating that kind of header. But sure, let’s remove the second occurrence of the package key.

1 Like

:+1: in general – should be applied to all official packages.

Minor detail: Why use © instead of the actual character? The files are utf-8 encoded…

@aertmann okay, good idea, will use © then …

To sum it up, I think we agreed upon this change and I’ll prepare the Pull Requests now …

Hmm, the copyright character looks pretty unpretty:

I think I’ll just go for the old-school ASCII version instead.

Here we go: