RE: [PEAR-DEV] Contributing code

> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Stocker [mailto:chregu@bitflux.ch] > > 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: > > > > 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. > Well we are not banning RMS or anything. We are just saying that we need to ensure that our users will not have to sort out licensing depencencies. PEAR tries to extend PHP and therefore the licenses used in PEAR should not be any "stricter" than that of PHP. And RMS made the LGPL for specifically these situations. Also the idea was to allow different packages for the same thing as long as they don’t do it the same way. If we allow GPL packages then we have to allow less strict licensed packages that do the same thing the same way. Not good at all! At the same time we can't drop a package (because its GPL) the second someone starts on a less strict implementation of a package that does the same thing the same way. Regards, Lukas