Denise is correct. I'd rather see this done via hooks.
Also note that the licensing for something doesn't have to be based on the repository it's in. I.e., we could change the dw-nonfree license to say "this is not licensed unless otherwise noted" and then, on the files that are "for our business needs but you can use them", just put our normal dw-free license in the top of those files.
The next thing that pops in to mind is -- we already expect and let people take code from dw-nonfree, licensed or not. There's just the expectation that it probably won't work for them out of the box and they're going to have to modify it. I don't really see the difference between what you are proposing and what we already allow people to do. The licensing?
If it's just the licensing that's a concern, then yeah, I think we should put the code in dw-free and use hooks.
no subject
Also note that the licensing for something doesn't have to be based on the repository it's in. I.e., we could change the dw-nonfree license to say "this is not licensed unless otherwise noted" and then, on the files that are "for our business needs but you can use them", just put our normal dw-free license in the top of those files.
The next thing that pops in to mind is -- we already expect and let people take code from dw-nonfree, licensed or not. There's just the expectation that it probably won't work for them out of the box and they're going to have to modify it. I don't really see the difference between what you are proposing and what we already allow people to do. The licensing?
If it's just the licensing that's a concern, then yeah, I think we should put the code in dw-free and use hooks.