Re: Contributing code

El Jue 28 Nov 2002 06:50, Maarten Stolte escribió: > Christian Stocker wrote: > >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > >> > >>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.. The same way we know people won't use GPL'd modules in commercial applications, we trust them. I also think GPL'd modules should be accepted, unless there is already a non GPL equivalent module in PEAR. Even PHP itself makes exceptions regarding licenses (ClibPDF, PDFlib). > 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