Re: Appropriate license for packages

On Sun, 2004-02-15 at 22:29, 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 > mentioned. Ianal, but it may be possible to create a derivative license that > automatically updates itself based on the latest PHP license (or we can use > the same version numbers as the PHP license). Something like "This license is > based on the PHP License 3.0, excluding paragraphs ... and substituting the > following wording for paragraph ...". I expect that the PHP 4.0 license will be upgraded to match the Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/licenses/). AFAICS, the two main advantages of the new Apache license is that it is GPL compatible, and it addresses potential patent/copyright/trademark issues so we never end up in any form of "SCO situation". Anyway, I suggest that we keep our cool for a while longer and tag along when PHP switches to the Apache 2.0 license. Check it out. I think this is just what PEAR needs. - Stig