Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries?
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:00:45 +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-7560@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 8/28/10 9:57 AM, Gustavo Lopes 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.
>
> I think accepting wrappers for commercial libraries doesn't make sense
> given the LGPL policy, hence I vote +1.
There is no LGPL policy. LGPLv2 is perfectly fine. LGPLv3 is a bit
iffy just because it is one of the most complicated licenses ever created.
-Rasmus