Re: Appropriate license for packages

Christian Stocker wrote:

On 2/15/04 10:29 PM, Klaus Guenther wrote:

"Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net> wrote:

although this is a little OT, maybe somebody can help me out. Does somebody know of any talks held or articles written about choosing the right license? This would be of particular interest to me with reference to packages (like the ones shipped by PEAR).

I think it would be of use. Iirc, there was an article on licensing in the PHP Magazine International Edition, but it would be nice to have a page in the manual that describes the various licenses that are acceptable to PEAR and the benefits of each.

When reading the PHP license again I recently thought there might be paragraphs in it which completely don't go together with PEAR packages (not only but e.g. even the closing sentence "This product includes the Zend Engine" - which is not included when we distribute packages).

That is right. Perhaps it is time to create a PEAR license that is based on the PHP license, but without certain clauses -- such as the one you

Please not yet another lisence ;) If you'd like to switch or recommend something else than the PHP license, please consider the Apache 2.0 License. From http://apache.org/licenses/ :

Actually we talked about this topic a bit recently in the group list as the current faq list is quite exentsive with a few problematic ones still listed (like GPL and QPL). In general I dont feel we should come up with yet another license. If you want to be on the safe side for PEAR choose the PHP, Apache, BSD-style or LGPL license. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07