RE: [PEAR-DEV] Licensing

> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Stocker [mailto:chregu@bitflux.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:59 PM > To: Lukas Smith > Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] 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 :) doh! I keep forgetting that one .. yes you are right fr all I know Christian regards, Lukas