Re: php extension for libxl

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: > On 8/28/10 9:51 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I sense some inconsistency here: > >>> > >>> http://www.devcomments.com/php-extension-for-lib-Judy-at273727.htm > >> > >> For example? > >> > >> > > You said, that the extension must be under PHP or BSD-like license, and > > after that, you said, that this is also applies for the libraries. > > And in the above mentioned link, you said, that lgpl v2 is okay for the > Judy > > library. > > > > Am I missing something (again) ? > > Basically we just want to avoid violating licenses or putting our users > in a position where they have license conflicts. BSD/PHP licensed > extensions against commercial libraries, as long as the commercial > library doesn't have some weird clause that precludes us from doing so, > does not present a license issue the same way GPL or potentially LGPLv3 > libraries do. > I understand the rationale, but I think that the current documentation/communication isn't clear about the policy. So could you answer my question? I mean somebody just said/hinted in the other thread that the current policy doesn't allow lgpl'ed libs, but in the linked thread, Pierre just said, that lgpl v2 is ok, v3 aren't (I know the differences, so it's logical answer), which isn't consistence with the above linked documentation pages and with Pierre mails in this thread.) > > Obviously we should make it quite clear that an extension has a > commercial dependency, but in most cases that is quite clear. > > +1. > PHP is glue, not religion. > > +10 Tyrael