Re: PHP License

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 03:36:06 -0400 Jon Parise <jon@php.net> wrote:

Who is "we" and should be switched? The PHP, Apache, BSD, and LGPL licenses are all approved licenses for PEAR and PECL packages: http://pear.php.net/manual/en/faq.licenses.php http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20040402-la.php I understand the basis of this thread is regarding some potentially inappropriate clauses (with regard to PHP script code) in the PHP license, but package developers have always been free to license their code under an alternate approved license.

Thanks Jon, I was going to post these exact links. Some other comments, about inventing a PEAR Licence or anything in this direction, I do not think it's a good idea, it will not help at all and only add some more confusions.

Also its creates needless hassle. Maybe its more feasible to get an updates PHP licenses that covers userland code more explicitly as well. While I also do not follow the interpretation put forth in the originating post, I do agree that things are needless confusing, since several points simply do not apply and you dont expect a license to be full of items that will never apply to the code licensed under said license.

About latest Lukas comment, it does not make sense to me. None of the allowed licences are "viral". That means, it does not matter what we use for the PEAR package itself.

My point was that it makes little sense for people to ship PEAR packages that are not licensend under the PHPL because they have a different interpretation of the PHPL if in the end their users still have to get the PEAR package somewhere anyways, which is licensed under the PHPL. So while the fact that PEAR is licensed under the PHPL does not force a license onto any package in PEAR, it still means that for practical purposes you have to deal with the PHPL due to the dependency on the PEAR package. regards, Lukas