Re: Re-Releasing PEAR packages under the BSD license

On 12/14/06, Terra Frost <terrafrost@gmail.com> wrote:

Terra Frost wrote: Justin Patrin wrote:

So? I honestly don't see what the problem here is. Just don't use the name "PHP" in the name of your project. That clause doesn't kick in and you have no problems.

The point is that the product cannot be licensed under the GPL unless everything within it is. Or atleast is compatible with the GPL. The PHP license isn't. If you disagree, how about taking it up with the Free Software Foundation. By their own admission, it isn't compatible (you have to scroll down quite a ways): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses As a follow up - I believe, although I cannot say definitively, that the "do not include php in the product name" restriction is the reason why the PHP license isn't GPL compatible.

That page doesn't say why and lists 3.0, not 3.01, so I still don't know how/why/whether it would be incompatible. The point is moot, however, due to the rest of my comments in that e-mail. A license does not have to be compatible as long as you're linking code which is licensed in such a way that linking is allowed. This is true of the PHP license, LGPL, BSD, and all other licenses we officially allow for PEAR packages. -- Justin Patrin