Re: License Announcement

Joe Stump wrote:

1.) Why don't we have a PEAR license?

I dont see where we would benefit. The aim of this announcement was to reduce the number of licenses people have to worry about. All of the licenses listed should be very well known for anyone in the opensource world and more importantly have been well documented even for people who are not lawyers.

2.) If a current package doesn't allow it to be used in a commercial/closed source application I think it should either a.) be removed or b.) change its license. I say the second thing mainly because I, as a commercial developer, shouldn't have to worry when using PEAR if the package I use will force me to open my app or not.

Well its not very nice to change the rules of the game underneath the feet of people. This should be kept to a minimum. On the up side we actually went and talked to every developer that was using a different license and in all cases it was possible to resolve the situation. Atleast looking at the database shows that no package is using a different license than PHP, Apache, LGPL or BSD. However what really matters are the license headers in the actual code, which we did not check. 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