Re: Licensing

Hi > the way I understand PEAR and interpret it's definition in the PEAR > manual is that its purpose is to add to what PHP can already do. > > This obviously requires that the same userbase can make use of these > packages and therefore the license of PEAR packages must be atleast > "similar" to that of PHP. > > Licenses that force people to make their code opensource as well if they > use a certain package (commercial or non-commercial) therefore don't > have a place in PEAR imho. Furthermore the idea is the build upon > existing packages and this can result in quite a confusing set of > licenses that need to be followed (btw: it might be a good idea to have > the installer note which licenses will need to be followed for a certain > package). > > At the same time the idea is to have people contribute to existing > classes. From my understanding licenses like the PHP license or LPGL > provide the best trade offs. They allow people to use the package in > their project without forcing them to open up their code, but at the > same time ensure the author that he will see contributions' coming back > if anyone extends the packages (this is definitely the case for the LGPL > ..dunno exactly about the PHP license). AFAIK, noone is obliged to give the changes back to you, neither with (L)GPL nor with "PHPL". The only thing someone has to do, if he changes/uses (L)GPL code, is to give (or make available) the source code to their "clients" (or to whom ever they distribute their code). They don't even have to give the modified code back to the original developer. Hope, I'm not tooo wrong with that :) chregu