Re: Inclusion of extension relying on commercial only libraries?
| From: | Gustavo Lopes | Date: | Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:08:27 +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-7563@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:00:45 +0100, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
On 8/28/10 9:57 AM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:Well, -1 then. But the text on http://pecl.php.net/account-request.php that reads: "extensions for LGPL libraries are strongly discouraged." ought to be changed.On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:49 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs <info@tyrael.hu> wrote:There is no LGPL policy. LGPLv2 is perfectly fine.On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>wrote: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.+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.
LGPLv3 is a bit iffy just because it is one of the most complicated licenses ever created.Can you explain (or point to some resource that explains) why LGPL v3 is problematic? -- Gustavo Lopes