Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries?

From: Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:00:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries?
References: 1 2 3 4  Groups: php.pecl.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to pecl-dev+get-7558@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:49 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs <info@tyrael.hu> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt >> >wrote: >> >> +1; I don't see any rationale for "strongly discouraging" LGPL v2 >>> libraries and prohibiting LGPL v3 ones, yet accepting commercial libraries. >>> >>> >>> If you don't see rationale, then you should vote for -1. >> >> > Whether or not I agree with declining wrappers for LGPL libraries (I > don't), that's the current policy. > > Are we declining them? http://www.devcomments.com/php-extension-for-lib-Judy-at273727.htm > I think accepting wrappers for commercial libraries doesn't make sense > given the LGPL policy, hence I vote +1. So you disagree with the current policy, but you vote for rejecting commercial libs for the consistency sake? Tyrael

« previous php.pecl.dev (#7558) next »