Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries?
| From: | Ferenc Kovacs | Date: | Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:07:09 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.pecl.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pecl-dev+get-7562@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
> 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
>
then the documentation is wrong about this, we should update it accordingly:
http://pecl.php.net/account-request.php
http://php.net/license/contrib-guidelines-code.php
<http://php.net/license/contrib-guidelines-code.php>Tyrael