Re: licenses, etc

In article <4.2.0.58.20001218083949.022b92b0@127.0.0.1>, "Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com> wrote: > I think when the LGPL/GPL talk about linking they are talking about > run-time linking too (shared libraries) and particularly in using > libraries such as libc in an application. This is pretty much where > binary cloud would step into the picture as it is supposed to be a libc > of PHP and there is definitely run time linking going on although it's > on a scripting level and not on what usually is referred to as linking. Yes, it certainly similar conceptually but I think when you have language such as (emphasis mine): ==== A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which use some of those functions and data) to FORM EXECUTABLES. ==== it's questionable whether binarycloud would be a 'library' under the definition used in the licence. As such under ==== 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. ==== it's questionable whether anyone can modify and redistribute the package (legally). > Anyway I just mentioned this to Alex to get him thinking on the issue a > bit. It sounded to me to begin with that the GPL is not exactly what he > needs but something close to the LGPL (maybe a bit more protective). > There are probably other licenses around which are more suitable. Don't > get yourself pressured by GPL fanatics :) > Anyway, I'm not an expert on all the zillion different licenses Indeed, it's certainly something you want to consider carefully. Paul.