Re: LGPL License on Net_LDAP

Geeze, i almost feel sorry for bringing the problem forth. No developer has fun having this discussion. Okay, here is the thing. The only interpretation of the php license I CAN adhere to is the FSF one (doesnt matter if i agree with it or not). And it says: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Its not compatible with pure GPL projects. It doesnt say why though, but i guess its an BSD type advertising clause in it: " 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from <http://www.php.net/>"" and " 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo" " That breaks the GPL. Because its pretty hungry with respect of what can or cannot be in linked code. The only advertisement clause the GPL is compatible with is its own, which requires the copyright notice and thats it. This has made many-a-developer that want acknowledgment for their work in the form of advertisement angry (XFree crowd f.ex.), but it has something to do with the aplicability of the license by law (allowing for extra clauses weakens the license), not with a philosophical argument of any kind. My guess is that php will change this license or make a strong argument FOR GPL compatibility (like the apache group has, in which they say that, regardless of the FSF interpretation, their license is GPL compatible, even if it has the advertisement clause for the Apache Group). All i know is that my project is hosted at savanah and is a GNU program, actually a part of DotGNU. I cannot, in any way, regardless of how i feel about it, go astray of the licensing guidelines im given WHILE COMMITING TO SAVANAH CVS. This happens to ANY software that is part of the GNU project. Ive an internal version of the software already using this licenses (GPL+Net_LDAP-PHPL together... however, this is illegal) but i cannot integrate it to the GPL project until i have a suitable GPL compatible lib. Thats why i sent email to tarjei who rapidly answered me. Whats would the status be if this is all to be LGPL? IANAL, but ill try to put a couple of examples which we can all research to reach an understanding of this: - The base point of this is that an LGPL NetLdap library does not limit commercial software from distributing binary only programs as far as they provide an LGPL license and code (or a URI to the download page for the code) for the LGPL library (and only it). - Derivative works of the L/GPLD code (actually opening and modifying it) are 'infected' L/GPL, but no files that include() or require(), and indeed "extend" the NETLdap lib are have to be of any other license than what their copyright holder wants (they can be fully proprietary). - Modifying the lib to include() or require() another, intended proprietary lib, voids your right to use the LGPL'd library (as youd have to put in the include() or require() to link it to non LGPL code, thus modifying it). This does not happen with BSD or PHP licensed code. Thats what i know about the LGPL and how its different from the php license.