Re: Was MPL under consideration of good licenses for PEAR?
| From: | Justin Patrin | Date: | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:57:20 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Was MPL under consideration of good licenses for PEAR? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-46429@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 4/24/07, Helgi Þormar <helgith@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/24/07, Justin Patrin <papercrane@gmail.com> wrote: We would of course love for Mozilla to be contributing packages to PEAR. The biggest problem with licenses is whether or not it allows commercial use. The second biggest is whether it is GPL compatible. The PHP License, for example, is not GPL compatible and so now it is either discouraged or not allowed (another thing the Group should decide). I know that Firefox had some recent license problems when it comes to the branding (Graydon explained some of this at the Monotone Summit). Would these apply to the MPL? PHP license 3.0.1 fixed that iircIIRC it didn't. This discussion was after that change. The 3.01 update had to do essentially with making the PHP-specific clauses PHP -specific. The PHP License still doesn't really make sense for anything but PHP. I would suggest we have people use more generic licenses. -- Justin Patrin