AFL License template is not identical to devdocs AFL License header

[matks]

According to https://devdocs.prestashop.com/1.7/development/coding-standards/#module-files

AFL License header should have this line:
* @author PrestaShop SA and Contributors <contact@prestashop.com>

The AFL License template in this repository does not have this line.

[matks]

@Quetzacoalt91 @ttoine Could you please confirm which version is right ? Devdocs or https://github.com/PrestaShopCorp/header-stamp/blob/master/assets/afl.txt ?

[Quetzacoalt91]

I'll let Antoine answer the question, as I would have relied on him anyway.

[matks]

@ttoine We need your expertise

[ttoine]

Well, it depends.

• For everything in the PrestaShop project's GitHub, sure, it's * @author PrestaShop SA and Contributors <contact@prestashop.com>, because it's the open source project.
• For PrestaShop Corp's GitHub, you must check first if all authors are PrestaShop SA employees or subcontractors (past and present).
  • If yes, the company is owner of all the copyright on the module, then you can keep * @author PrestaShop SA <contact@prestashop.com>.
  • If there is an external contribution on a module, then, you add and Contributors.
  • If you want to remove and contributors, then your team will have to rewrite the parts authored by independent contributors.

Is it clear now ?

[matks]

@ttoine thank your for answer. So we actually have 2 usecases 😛 : AFL license header for PrestaShop-only modules and AFL license header for PrestaShop + contributors modules.

[ttoine]

Looks like that, yes.
Maybe my answer should go in some documentation for future reference?

[matks]

@Quetzacoalt91 Would it be OK to have 2 AFL templates stored inside this repository, and let user choose the one he wants?

[Quetzacoalt91]

We can have 2 different files yes.

I guess the difference on PrestaShop Corp would be if we have pulic or private repositories ? Because on a public repository, at any time we could have our first extenal contributor on the project.