Re: Contributing code

Christian Stocker wrote:

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. mm..problem arises which always does with free software, people choose what they want to work on, therefore the gpl'd module could be lots better, we have to make sure still the non-gpl module will stay if people want/have to use that. Another problem, how do you know the non-gpl'd doesnt 'take' code from the gpl'd? Cleanroom can hardly be said of it if its both in pear.. Maarten

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