[5.9] Revert "[5.9] Removed the md extension from LICENSE"

[driesvints]

Reverts #29041

It doesn't matter if it's Markdown. Markdown is a plain-text format. This is the same across all the other repos. Markdown will also neatly render in Github. This is also pretty much the standard across other popular open source libraries (Spatie, Zend, Beyond Code, ...)

[GrahamCampbell]

👎 The convention is, however, not use use the md extension. In particular, software that automatically checks licenses may only look for LICENSE.

[antonkomarev]

I suppose Spatie & Beyond Code are using .md extension because Laravel used it when they were deciding how to name a file. Symfony using LICENSE name without extension.

[driesvints]

We're already using a Markdown extension across all other Laravel libraries. It's a plain-text file. I really don't see the need to change this.

[BrandonSurowiec]

For what it is worth, the 5.8 branch (with .md) shows a nice license summary at the top of the page on Github, but the extension-less one does not. I vote to revert.

• With Summary: https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.8/LICENSE.md
• Without: https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/master/LICENSE

[antonkomarev]

That's strange because in all my packages license summary displays for files without extension without any issues: https://github.com/cybercog/laravel-love/blob/master/LICENSE

[BrandonSurowiec]

@antonkomarev Guess I'm wrong then :)

[antonkomarev]

Maybe github will switch license parser to new naming only after next release... who knows...

[GrahamCampbell]

GitHub only renders licenses determined by the default branch of a repo, which is 5.8 for us.

[staudenmeir]

An argument against the md extension: GitHub adds a LICENSE file when you create a new repository and select a license.

[taylorotwell]

I'm fine with reverting it until we can get all of the repositories done across the ecosystem. I don't have a strong preference either way.