Re: php extension for libxl

> > > What's the question? I thought I answered it. LGPLv2 is perfectly > fine. We discourage LGPLv3 because it is really hard to figure that > license out. For example, LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2-only > things like Linus' parts of the Linux kernel and other GPLv2-only > programs out there. Introducing LGPLv3 libraries into a system can end > up violating licenses, and our stated goal is to try to make sure we > don't end up in a place where our users have to spend a bunch of time > trying to figure out license compatibility issues. Sticking with simple > and clean licenses like LGPLv2, BSD, PHP and other compatible licenses > lets us achieve this. > > -Rasmus > As I said previously I know the reason behind restricting gpl and lgpl v3 licenses, and I know the differences between the licenses as well. So my questions again: 1) If lgpl v2 is ok, then why isn't this stated in the above mentioned php documentation pages? (in the current form it seems that lgpl as a whole is discouraged/restricted) 2) If lgpl v2 is ok, then why did Pierre wrote in the previous email that extensions must be under PHP/BSD license (which is true AFAIK), and when Johannes said, that this doesn't apply for libs, he(Pierre) said that this applies for the libraries as well. 3) If Pierre mistakenly thinks that the linked libraries can be only licensed under PHP or BSD-like licenses, then why did he said for the Judy extension developer that lgpl v2 licensed library is perfectly fine. 4) What is the reason, that the core developers and the current documentation are out of sync with the license policy. Tyrael