Re: Contributing code

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > le 28/11/02 7:48, Maarten Stolte à maarten.stolte@papuaos.org a écrit : > > > Richard Heyes wrote: > > > >>> both sound interesting enough .. > >>> yet this brings up the licensing issue again ... > >>> > >>> Stig .. in our last discussion you said something like "lets wait til > >>> monday" :-) > >>> > >>> I for one think that PEAR packages should have similar licenses to what > >>> PHP runs under. Especially no forcing of opening code that interfaces > >>> with the package. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> So long GPL... > >> So long QPL... > >> > >> /me waves > >> > >> > > I'd join that wave, its a pain to have this great repository of > > libraries and modules, but to have to be carefull what you pick to not > > join your own end product. > > IMO, we should ban GPL'd products. Why ? Because a GPL'd class could take > the place of another non-GPL'd class that would do the same job and be more > flexible when it will be used in a commercial product. As I mentioned in my other mail, I'm against banning GPL code. It would be a very very bad sign to the Open Source Community if PEAR says "GPL code is not allowed in here" (I can already hear the outcry, even if most (99.9% :) ) of the packages will not be GPL or be changed to LGPL if we ask the author gently). About non-gpl packages competing with gpl packages: First, we can replace the gpl package, if/when there is a non-gpl package arround. Or we just have two, one gpl and one not, if both are equal well. But I really think, most of the contributers to PEAR will not have a problem with changing the license to something less problematic (for libraries) than GPL. chregu