Re: PHP 5.1.2 Release Plan

At 23:51 06/12/2005, Pierre wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:53:37 -0800 rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote: Pierre wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:03:16 +0100 derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

* Introduce xmlwriter extension via a symlink from pecl into core and as other XML extension enable it by default.

Make sure that the licences gets switched back to the PHP license then...

It is already done since last week. And I still do not have some good explanation about this new requirement.

It's not a new requirement. It is simply the status-quo and common sense. Our common senses tend to differ, it is sometimes good to clarify it :-) All the extensions we bundle are under the same license so people get a tarball with a consistent license and they don't have to wade through a license soup trying to figure out if they meet all the requirements of a bunch of different licenses. We could add extensions with different, but compatible licenses, but there would have to be an *extremely* good reason to do so. Well, talking about extensions only, I have not a real big problem but the copyrights, I am reluctant to give the copyrights to the group (and loose it all together), or is it possible to keep original authors besides the PHP group?

I'm not sure why you care exactly, but from a pure legal standpoint, it complicates things a bit. Does it mean that someone who wants to use PHP in his product name has to also come to you in addition to getting permission from group@php.net? Does it mean we need to get your OK on any future license changes, as minor as they may be?

About the consistent license policy inside a tarball, GDlib is not under the PHP License, for example. Or upcoming bundled libs will have to follow the same policy (lib like in gdlib for example)? About other licences, indeed I was thinking about BSD'ish license for the worst case (and certainly not lgpl&friends as they are more restrictive).

What's wrong with the PHP license? Zeev